<^  OF  PWJ^ 


,  FEB  20  1964 


'^y 


sec 

3157 


i-iu 


HISTORY  OF  THE  DIVISION 


OF  THE 


PRESBYTEEIAN  CHURCH 


IN   THE 


United  $hUB  nf  Iraeritn. 


BY    A 

COMMITTEE  OF  THE  SYNOD 

OP  NEW   YORK   AND  NEW  JERSEY. 


NEW   YORK: 
PUBLISHED    BY    M.    W.    DODD, 

Brick  Cliurch  Cluipel,  City  Hall  Square,  opposite  the  City  Hall. 

18  5  2. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852,  by 

G.    N.    JUDD, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New  York. 


EDWARD  O.  JENKINS,  PRINTER, 
114   Nasiau   Stre«t. 


Cnnt  tnts. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

History  of  the  causes  which  produced  the  Division  in  the  Presbyterian 

Church, 9 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 

The  grounds  On  which  the  majority  attempted  to  justify  their  Ex- 
scinding Acts,  and  the  Dissolution  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia,  stated, 22 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

The  grounds  on  which  the  Assembly  attempted  to  justify  their  Abro- 
gation of  the  *'  Plan  of  Union,"  the  Excision  of  the  Four  Synods, 
and  Dissolution  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  ex- 
amined,     34 


CHAPTER  FOURTH. 

The  alleged,  shown  to  be,  not  the  real  nor  chief  reasons  for  the  Exci- 
sion of  the  fQjir  Synods,         79 


CHAPTER  FIFTH. 

The  real  grounds  of  the  passing  of  the  Acts  of  Excision,  stated,        .       84 

CHAPTER  SIXTH. 

Measures  taken  by  the  Constitutional  portion  of  the  Church  to  pre- 
serve its  integi'ity,  and  prevent  the  organization  of  an  irregular 
Assembly. — They  succeeded  in  organizing  it  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution, l.^S 

CHAPTER  SEVENTH. 

The  Assembly,  which  held  its  Sessions  in  the  Seventh  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  1838,  was  organized  upon  a  basis  wholly  unknown  to 
our  Constitution, 170 


IV  CONTENTS. 

.      CHAPTER  EIGHTH. 
Erroneous  application  of  the  names,  Old  and  New  iSchool.— Those 
who  style  themselves  Old  School  are  the  New,  and  those  whom 
they  denominate  New  are  the  Old  School  branch  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church, 183 

CHAPTER  NINTH. 

Policy  of  the  self-styled  Reformers  concerning  a  division  of  the  funds, 
and  their  feelings  in  reference  to  an  appeal  to  the  law  of  the  land, 
to  decide  to  whom  they  belonged,  or  how  they  should  be  divided 
— Unsuccessful  efforts  of  the  Constitutional  Assembly  to  prevent 
litigation — Legal  proceedings,  and  their  results,  ....      186 

CHAPTER  TENTH. 

Measures  taken  by  the  Constitutional  Branch  of  the  Church  to  unite 

the  two  in  one  body, 207 

CHAPTER  ELEVENTH. 

Our  position,  duty,  and  prospects, 214 

Appendix, 226 


The  following  extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  New  Jersey,  at  their  Sessions  held  in  the  City 
of  Brooklyn,  Oct.,  1850,  and  the  accompanying  remarks, 
show  the  origin  and  object  of  this  publication. 

"  The  Synod,  taking  into  view  the  state  of  that  branch  of 
the  Church  with  which  they  are  connected,  believe  that  their 
interests,  and  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness,  will 
be  promoted  by  the  careful  preparation,  and  the  wide  diffu- 
sion of  a  history  of  the  causes  which  produced  a  division  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country  ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  five  Ministers 
and  five  Ruling  Elders,  be  appointed  to  prepare  and  publish 
a  brief  history  of  the  causes  which  produced  this  division,  and 
of  the  subsequent  attempts  which  have  been  made  by  our 
branch  of  the  Church  to  unite  the  two  Assemblies,  together 
with  the  legal  rights  of  churches  in  which  attempts  may  be 
made  to  remove  them  from  our  connection." — Minutes  of  the 
Synod,  jyarje  15. 

The  members  of  the  committee  were  designated  as  follows : 

Rev.  G.  N.  Judd,  D.  D.  Hon.  Jos.  C.  Hornblower, 

"     T.  H.  Skinner,  D.  D.  "      Cyrus  P.  Smith, 

,*'     E.  F.  Hatfield,  D.  D.  "      John  L.  Mason, 

**     Jos.  S.  Gallagher,  "      Danl.  Haines, 
"     S.  T.  Spear,  **      William  Jessup. 

1 


VI  PREFACE. 


Till  within  a  recent  period  the  hope  was  cherished  that  the 
necessity  of  such  a  history  as  that  which  this  resolution 
contemplates,  would  be  superseded  by  the  union  of  the  two 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Repeated  overtures 
have  been  made  by  our  Assembly  to  that  of  our  brethren  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  this  object,  all  of  which  have  been 
rejected  by  them,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  perusal  of  the  follow- 
ing history.  The  report  of  the  committee  of  their  last  As- 
sembly upon  "  the  Memorial  of  the  Presbytery  of  Rochester, 
asking  the  Assembly  to  adopt  measures  to  effect  a  union 
betw^een  the  two  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  and 
the  haste  with  which  the  transfer  of  the  Third  Church,  New- 
ark, was  made  to  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown  against  the 
respectful  and  earnest  remonstrance  of  a  minority  of  said 
Church,  and  another  from  members  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Newark,  and  elders  of  the  churches  under  its  care,  show 
beyond  all  controversy  that  the  only  union,  which  the  lead- 
ing members  of  their  branch  of  the  Church  contemplate,  is 
by  the  absorption  of  our  ministers  and  churches. 

In  these  circumstances  we  are  called  upon  either  to  admit 
that  the  principles  which  governed  us  in  the  organization  of 
the  Assembly  of  1838,  and  in  our  uniform  course  of  action 
since,  were  wrong  ;  or  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  manfully 
to  defend  them.  We  cannot  for  a  moment  hesitate  which 
alternative  to  choose.  That  all  our  acts  in  the  peculiarly  try- 
ino-  circumstances  in  which  we  have  been  placed,  are  faultless, 
we  would  by  no  means  assert.  That  the  pnviczp/t5  which 
in  the  main  have  governed  us  in  the  unhappy  controversy, 
forced  upon  us  by  our  brethren,  are  correct,  and  that  it  is 
our  imperative  duty  to  defend  them,  we  are  as  fully  persuaded 
as  that  it  is  our  duty  "  earnestly  to  contend  for  the  faith 
which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints." 

Other  reasons  call  for  the  history  contained  in  the  follow- 
ino-  pages.  So  long  as  any  ground  of  hope  remained  that 
the  two  branches  of  the  Church  might  soon  be  united,  but  lit- 
tle was  said  or  pubhshed  by  the  one  to  which  we  are  attached. 


PREFACE.  Vii 

respecting  the  causes  of  the  division.  The  necessary  conse- 
quence is,  that  the  younger  portion  of  our  ministers  and 
church-members  need  information  on  this  subject.  Indeed, 
many  important  facts  connected  with  the  division  have  faded 
from  the  memories  of  those  who  once  possessed  the  knowl- 
edge of  them,  andLgught  to  be  restored. 

The  presentation  of  these  facts  is  also  needed,  in  order  to 
counteract  erroneous  statements  and  remove  false  impressions 
made  by  them,  respecting  the  causes  of  the  division.  We 
charge  none  with  intentional  misrepresentation,  but  statements 
have  been  made  by  our  brethren  respecting  them,  which  we 
believe  to  be  wholly  unauthorized  by  facts,  and  which  have  led 
many  in  our  country  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
to  believe  that  our  branch  of  the  Church,  w^hile  it  inofessedlij 
adheres  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  is  corrupt  in  doctrine, 
fanatical  in  practice,  and  guilty  of  the  sin  of  schism.  It  is 
high  time  that  the  evidence  of  the  truthlessness  of  these 
statements  should  be  laid  before  the  public,  and  that  minds 
which  have  been  led  into  error  by  them  should  be  disabused. 
To  do  this  is  one  of  the  objects  of  the  following  narrative. 


€lji^ttx  in$i. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   CAUSES  "WTHICH   PRODUCED   THE   DIVISION   IN   THE   PRESBY- 
TERIAN  CHURCH. 

A  FEW  years  since  the  Presbyterian  Churcli  in  these  United 
States  was  a  united  and  efficient  branch  of  the  Protestant 
family  of  behevers.  Her  ministers  and  hcentiates  niimbered 
more  than  two  thousand,  and  in  talents,  learning,  Christian 
character,  and  the  ability  and  fidelity  with  which  they  dis- 
charged their  official  duties,  they  held  an  honorable  rank 
amons:  their  brethren  of  the  other  branches  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  The  number  of  her  communicants  exceeded  tAVO 
hundred  thousand,  comprising  an  amount  of  intelligence, 
wealth,  and  influence  which,  in  connection  with  her  Ministry, 
qualified  her  to  perform  no  unimportant  part  in  the  evangeliza- 
tion of  our  countiy  and  the  world.  For  the  literary,  scien- 
tific, and  theological  education  of  her  sons,  she  had  colleges 
and  theological  seminaries,  not  inferior  to  those  of  any  of  her 
sister  denominations,  and  great  advantages  for  promoting  the 
cause  of  education  throughout  our  widely  extended  country. 
Her  resources  for  exerting  a  wide  and  commanding  influence 
for  good  were  ample.  Now  she  is  divided  into  two  bands, 
both  of  which  adopt  the  same  standards  of  doctrine  and 
discipline.  They  do  not,  however,  as  formerly,  meet  in  the 
same  judicatories.  Each  has  its  own  Presbyteries,  Synods, 
and  General  Assembly.  Those  who  once  united  in  sweet 
and  hallowed  fellowship  in  the  worship  of  God,  now  meet 
in  diff'erent  sanctuaries,  and  rarely  unite  in  commemorating 


10 


A    HISTORY    OF    THE 


their  redemption  by  the  priceless  sacrifice  of  their  common 
Lord  and  Saviour. 

Why  is  it  thus  ?  What  has  rent  asunder  a  body  of  be- 
lievers, who  adopt  the  same  system  of  doctrinal  belief  and 
the  same  Ecclesiastical  Polity  ?  In  the  minds  of  intelligent 
men,  who  are  not  well  versed  in  the  history  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  this  country  for  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years, 
these  are  questions  which  naturally  arise.  The  object  of 
the  ensuingr  narrative  is  to  furnish  a  true  answer  to  them. 

For  several  years  previous  to  the  division  of  the  Church, 
causes  had  been  in  operation,  tending  to  produce  this  sad 
catastrophe,  which  will  be  noticed  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
this  narrative.  By  the  great  body  of  those  now  composing 
our  branch  of  the  Church,  however,  and  many  in  the  other, 
of  tolerant  views  and  pacific  spirit,  it  was  hoped  their  influ- 
ence miofht  be  counteracted  and  ultimately  removed.  This 
fondly  cherished  hope  was  not  realized.  Within  the  bosom 
of  the  Church  there  were  elements  of  evil,  which  could  be 
controlled  only  by  the  combined  efforts  of  moderate  men  of 
both  parties.  Unhappily,  this  combination  was  not  efl'ected. 
By  a  document  which  will  be  noticed  hereafter,  called  "  The 
Act  and  Testimony,"  Conventions  held  previously  to  the 
meetings  of  several  General  Assemblies,  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  controlling  their  proceedings  and  other  efforts  di- 
rected to  the  attainment  of  the  same  end,  in  the  Assembly 
of  1837,  they  received  a  majority.  Finding  themselves  in 
possession  of  power,  they  resolved  to  use  it.  The  course, 
which  it  was  their  purpose  to  pursue  in  case  they  should 
have  a  majority  in  the  Assembly,  was  marked  out  by  the 
Convention,  which  during  the  previou*^  week,  had  been  in  ses- 
sion in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  On  the  second  day  of  the 
Sessions  of  the  Assembly  the  "Testimony  and  Memorial"  of 
the  Convention  was  presented  to  that  body.  The  character 
of  this  document  will  be  sufficiently  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing extract  and  brief  statement  of  its  principal  objects. 
They  say, 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  11 

"  It  is  against  error  that  we  emphatically  bear  our  testi- 
mony,— error  dangerous  to  the  souls  of  men,  dishonoring  to 
Jesus  Christ,  contrary  to  his  revealed  truth,  and  utterly  at 
variance  with  our  standards.  Urror,  not  as  it  may  be  freely 
and  openly  held  by  others,  in  this  age  and  land  of  absolute 
religious  freedom  ;  but  error  held,  and  taught  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  preached  and  written  by  persons  who  pro- 
fess to  receive  and  adopt  our  scriptural  standards — promoted 
by  societies  operating  widely  through  our  churches — re- 
duced into  form,  and  openly  embraced  by  almost  entire 
Presbyteries  and  Synods — favored  by  repeatsd  acts  of  Ge- 
neral Assemblies,  and  at  last  virtually  sanctioned  to  an 
alarming  extent  by  the  numerous  Assembly  of  1836." 

This  declaration  is  followed  by  a  specification  of  appaUing 
errors,  in  doctrine  and  departures  from  Presbyterian  order 
and  discipUne,  which  the  Convention  afi&rmed  to  be  exten- 
sively prevalent  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  above  quotation  from  the  "  Testimony  and  Memo- 
rial" of  the  convention  and  brief  statement  of  its  character, 
is  all  that  a  due  regard  to  brevity  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
mittee admits.  Those  who  desire  more  ample  information 
respecting  it,  we  refer  to  the  document  itself  and  the  minutes 
of  the  Convention.  An  examination  of  them  will  make  it 
undeniably  evident  either  that  large  portions  of  the  Church 
zvere  grossly  corrupt  both  in  doctrine  and  practice,  or  that  the 
Convention  were  guilty  of  wholesale  slander.  Which  was 
really  the  fact,  will  appear  in  the  progress  of  this  narrative. 

The  statement  of  the  errors  and  grievous  departures  from 
the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which 
the  "  Testimony  and  Memorial"  affirmed  to  be  extensively 
prevalent,  was  followed  by  a  proposed  method  of  reform, 
designed  to  be  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  the  first  measure 
of  which  was  the  abrogation  of  ''  a  plan  of  union  between 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  in  the  new  settlements 
adopted  in  1801." 

Here  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  plan  orirjinated  with 


12  A    HISTORY    OF    THE 

Presbyterians,  and  was  by  their  General  Assembly  proposed 
to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and  by  both 
bodies  unanimously  adopted.     It  is  as  follows  : — 

"  Regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  and  by  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  (provided  said  Associa- 
tion agree  to  them),  with  a  view  to  prevent  alienation  and 
promote  union  and  harmony,  in  those  new  settlements  which 
are  composed  of  inhabitants  from  these  bodies. 

1st.  It  is  strictly  enjoined  on  all  their  missionaries  to  the 
new  settlements,  to  endeavor,  by  all  proper  means,  to  pro- 
mote mutual  forbearance  and  accommodation,  between  those 
inhabitants  of  the  new  settlements  who  hold  the  Presbyterian 
and  those  who  hold  the  Congregational  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment. 

2d.  If  in  the  new  settlements,  any  church  of  the  Congre- 
gational order  shall  settle  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
order,  that  church  may,  if  they  choose,  stiU  conduct  their 
discipline  according  to  congregational  principles,  settling  their 
difficulties  among  themselves,  or  by  a  council  mutually  agreed 
upon  for  that  purpose :  But  if  any  difficulty  shall  exist  be- 
tween the  minister  and  the  church  or  any  member  of  it,  it 
shall  be  referred  to  the  Presbytery  to  which  the  minister 
shall  belong,  provided  both  parties  agree  to  it ;  if  not,  to  a 
council  consisting  of  an  equal  number  of  Presbyterians  and 
Congregationalists,  agreed  upon  by  both  parties. 

3d.  If  a  Presbyterian  Church  shall  settle  a  minister  of 
congregational  principles,  that  church  may  still  conduct  their 
discipline  according  to  Presbyterian  principles;  excepting 
that  if  a  difficulty  arise  between  him  and  his  church,  or  any 
member  of  it,  the  cause  shall  be  tried  by  the  Association,  to 
which  the  said  minister  shall  belong,  provided  both  parties 
agree  to  it ;  otherwise  by  a  council,  one  half  Congregation- 
alists and  the  other  half  Presbyterians,  mutually  agreed  on 
by  the  parties. 

4th.  If  any  congregation  consist  partly  of  those  who  hold 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  13 

the  congregational  form  of  discipline,  and  partly  of  those  who 
hold  the  Presbyterian  form ;  we  recommend  to  both  parties, 
that  this  be  no  obstruction  to  their  uniting  in  one  church  and 
settling  a  minister :  and  that  in  this  case,  the  church  choose 
a  standing  committee  from  the  communicants  of  said  church, 
whose  business  it  shall  be,  to  call  to  account  every  member 
of  the  church,  who  shall  conduct  himself  inconsistently  with 
the  laws  of  Christianity,  and  to  give  judgment  on  such  con- 
duct :  and  if  the  person  condemned  by  their  judgment,  be  a 
Presbyterian,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Presby- 
tery ;  if  a  Congregationalist,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal 
to  the  bod}^  of  the  male  communicants  of  the  church  :  in  the 
former  case  the  determination  of  the  Presbytery  shall  be 
final,  unless  the  church  consent  to  a  further  appeal  to  the 
Synod,  or  to  the  General  Assembly ;  and  in  the  latter  case, 
if  the  party  condemned  shall  wish  for  a  trial  by  a  mutual 
council,  the  cause  shall  be  referred  to  such  council.  And 
provided  the  said  standing  committee  of  any  church,  shall 
depute  one  of  themselves  to  attend  the  Presbytery,  he  may 
have  the  same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  Presbytery,  as  a 
ruling  elder  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

On  motion  Resolved,  That  an  attested  copy  of  the  above 
plan  be  made  by  the  Stated  Clerk,  and  put  into  the  hands  of 
the  delegates  of  This  Assembly  to  the  General  Association, 
to  be  by  them  laid  before  that  body  for  their  consideration  ; 
and  that  if  it  should  be  approved  by  them,  it  go  into  imme- 
diate operation." — Vol.  I.  p.  261,  262. 

On  the  23d  day  of  May,  after  a  long  and  animated  debate 
on  the  subject,  the  following  resolution  was  passed  by  the  As- 
sembly— viz. : — 

"  But  as  the  plan  of  union  adopted  for  the  new  settle- 
ments in  ISOl  was  originally  an  unconstitutional  act  on  the 
part  of  that  Assembly — these  important  standing  rules 
having  never  been  submitted  to  the  Presbyteries — and  as 
they  were  totally  destitute  of  authority  as  proceeding  from 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  invested 
1* 


14  A    HISTORY    OF    THE 

with  no  power  to  legislate  in  such  cases,  and  especially  to 
enact  laws  to  reofulate  churches  not  within  her  limits :  and 
as  much  confusion  and  irregularity  have  arisen  from  this  un- 
natural and  unconstitutional  system  of  union,  therefore  it  is 
resolved,  that  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  1801,  entitled  a- 

*  Plan  of  Union,'  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  abrogated." — 
Minutes  of  the  Assemhy  of  1837,^:>ff^e  421. 

•  By  this  resolution  •'  a  Plan  of  Union,"  all  whose  provi- 
sions were  manifestly  adapted  to  promote  the  spread  of 
true  religion  in  the  new  settlements,  and  to  diffuse  the  bene- 
volent and  uniting  principles  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  and 
which  for  thirty  six  years  had  been  acted  upon  in  good  faith, 
was  abrogated.  The  grounds  of  a  procedure  so  manifestly 
unjust  and  so  uncourteous  in  its  aspect  toward  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  will  be  noticed  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  history. 

The  day  next  succeeding  that  on  which  the  resolution  ab- 
rogating "the  Plan  of  Union"  was  passed,  the  Assembly 
took  up  that  part  the  Memorial  of  the  Convention  which  rela- 
ted to  doctrinal  errors.  This  called  forth  a  long  and  animated 
discussion,  and  on  Friday,  the  26th  day  of  May,  the  follow- 
ing resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  majority  of  six  votes,  viz.  : 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  proper  steps  be  now  taken  to  cite 
to  the  bar  of  the  next  Assembly  such  inferior  judicatories  as 
are  charged  by  common  fame  with  irregularities. 

"  2.  That  a  special  committee  be  now  appointed  to  ascertain 
what  inferior  judicatories  are  thus  charged  by  common  fame, 
prepare  charges  and  specifications  against  them,  and  to  di- 
gest a  suitable  plan  of  procedure  in  the  matter ;  and  that 
said  Committee  report  as  soon  as  practicable. 

*'  3.  That,  as  citations  on  the  foregoing  plan  is  tlie  com- 
mencement of  a  process  involving  the  right  of  membership 
in  the  Assembly  ;  therefore,  resolved,  tli at  agreeably  to  a  prin- 
ciple laid  down,  chap.  V.,  sec.  9th  of  the  'Form  of  Gov- 
ernment,' the  members  of  said  judicatories  be  excluded 
from  a  seat  in  the  next  Assembly,  until  their  case  shall  be 
decided." — Minutes  of  the  Assembhj  of  1837,   'page  425. 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  15 

These  resolutions  were  protested  against  by  the  minority, 
not  because  they  were  unwilhng  to  concur  in  methods,  au- 
thorized by  the  Gospel  and  our  book  of  disci phne  for  the 
removal  of  error  and  the  maintenance  and  vindication  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  because  they  were 
fully  persuaded  that  the  facts  in  the  case  did  not  authorize 
the  measures  proposed  in  these  resolutions.  That  errors  in 
doctrine  and  irregularities  in  practice  existed  in  some  sec- 
tions of  the  Church,  was  believed  and  deplored  by  many 
now  attached  to  the  Constitutional  Assembly.  They  were 
fully  satisfied,  however,  that  there  was  gross  exaggeration  in 
the  statements  of  the  Memorial  of  the  Convention  on  this 
subject,  calculated  to  produce  unnecessary  alarm  and  agita- 
tion, and  injure  the  reputation  and  usefulness  of  brethren  who 
were  sound  in  the  Mih.  Nor  did  they  believe  arraignment 
at  the  bar  of  the  Assembly  was  the  first  step  which  should 
be  taken  wiih  erring  brethren.  Deeply  did  they  feel  that 
before  charges  of  heresy  and  gross  disorder  were  formally 
brouofht  against  them,  efforts  should  be  made  to  reclaim  them 
in  the  spirit  of  Christian  forbearance  and  love.  Such  efforts 
they  believed  were  all  that  the  facts  in  the  case  authorized. 
Moreover,  evidence  was  before  their  minds,  which  fully  satis- 
fied them  that  however  honestly  and  zealously  some  of  the 
majority  were  laboring  to  promote  the  purity  of  the  Church, 
the  leaders  in  that  Assembly  had  an  ulterior  object  in  view. 
They  were  grasping  at  power.  The  evidence  of  this  is  pal- 
pable in  this  narrative.  It  is  apparent  from  the  third  resolu- 
tion, designed  to  secure  the  arraignment  of  the  inferior  judi- 
catories on  the  charge  of  heresy  and  irregularities  at  the  bar 
of  the  next  Assembly.  Mark  the  language  of  this  resolu- 
tion. "  Resolved,  That  agreeably  to  a  principle  laid  down, 
chap.  V.  sec.  9th,  of  the  Form  of  Government,  the  members 
of  said  judicatories  be  excluded  from  a  seat  in  the  next  As- 
sembly, until  their  case  shall  be  decided."  By  carrying  out 
this  resolution,  they  hoped  to  secure  the  power  which,  it  was 
manifest,  they  were  laboring  to  attain. 


16 


A    HISTORY    OF    THE 


Strongly,  however,  as  the  minority  were  opposed  to  the 
resolutions  in  favor  of  arraigning  the  Synods  against  which 
they  were  aimed,  when  they  became  convinced  that  this 
measure  must  be  adopted  or  the  Synods  cast  out  of  the 
Church  without  trial  or  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  their 
own  defence,  as  the  less  of  two  evils,  they  chose  the  former. 
In  order  to  prevent  their  immediate  exclusion  from  the  Church, 
they  presented  the  following  preamble  and  resolution, 
viz. : 

**  Whereas,  it  has  been  alleged,  that  tlie  Synods  of  Geneva, 
Genesee,  and  Utica,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  have  been  guilty  of  important  de- 
linquency and  grossly  unconstitutional  proceedings,  and  a 
resolution  predicated  on  this  allegation  to  exclude  the  said 
Synods  from  the  said  Presbyterian  Church  has  been  offered 
in  this  Assembly ;  and,  whereas,  no  specified  act  of  the  said 
Synods  has  been  made  the  ground  of  proceeding  against  those 
bodies,  nor  any  specific  members  of  those  bodies  have  been 
designated  as  the  delinquents  ;  and,  whereas,  these  charges 
are  denied  by  the  commissioners  representing  these  bodies  on 
this  floor,  and  an  inquiry  into  the  whole  matter  is  demanded  ; 
and,  whereas,  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Synods  have 
had  no  previous  notice  of  these  proceedings,  nor  of  the  ex- 
istence of  any  charge  against  them,  individually  or  collect- 
ively, nor  any  opportunity  of  defending  themselves  against 
the  charges  so  broue^ht  ae^ainst  them  : 

"  Therefore,  resolved.  That  that  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Ge- 
neva and  Genesee  be  and  hereby  are  cited  to  appear  on  the 
third  Thursday  of  May  next,  at  Philadelphia,  before  the  next 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  to  show  what  they  have  done  or  failed  to 
do,  in  the  case  in  question,  and  if  necessary,  generally  to  an- 
swer any  charges  that  may  or  can  be  alleged  against  them, 
to  the  end  that  the  whole  matter  may  be  examined  into, 
deliberated  upon,  and  judged  of,  according  to  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  17 

States  of  America." — Minutes  of  the  Asae^nhly  of  1837,  pa- 
ges 443,  444. 

This  preamble  and  resolution,  presented  subsequently  to 
other  acts  of  the  Assembly  which  claim  attention,  are 
introduced  here  to  show  that  the  minority,  though  opposed 
to  the  measure  for  reasons  before  stated,  advocated  the  cita- 
tion of  the  Synods  named  in  the  resolution,  when  they  be- 
came convinced  if  that  were  not  done,  they  would  be  thrust 
out  of  the  Church,  without  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  their 
own  defence. 

In  order  to  give  a  correct  history  of  the  division  of  the 
Church  and  the  causes  which  led  to  the  sad  catastrophe,  it 
must  be  stated  that  previously  to  the  presentation  of  the 
foregoing  resolution,  an  effort  was  made  to  effect  an  amicable 
division.  This  was  proposed  by  the  leading  member  in  the 
majority.  By  the  minority,  division  had  for  years  been  uni- 
formly opposed  as  unnecessary  and  disastrous.  When  com- 
pelled to  contemplate  measures  with  a  view  to  bring  about  a 
division  of  the  Church,  they  yielded  to  the  law  of  necessity. 
A  committee  of  ten,  five  from  the  majority  and  five  from  the 
minority,  was  appointed  to  consult  together  respecting  a  di- 
vision, but  they  could  not  agree,  and  each  branch  brought  in 
a  separate  report.  These  documents  are  too  long  to  be  in- 
serted here.  TEey  can  be  found  and  examined  by  turning 
to  pages  430  and  437  inclusive,  of  the  Minutes  of  the  As- 
sembly of  lb37.  Upon  the  points  which  respected  a  division 
of  the  Church,  the  Committee  came  to  an  agreement,  except 
those  which  related  to  the  time  and  manner  of  its  being  done, 
and  the  charactei-  of  the  Assembly.  The  members  of  the 
Committee  who  acted  in  behalf  of  the  majority  of  the  As- 
sembly, insisted  upon  an  immediate  division.  Those  who 
represented  the  minority  believed  they  had  no  authority  from 
the  Constitution,  nor  the  Presbyteries  which  commissioned 
them,  to  do  anything  to  effect  an  immediate  dismemberment 
of  the  Church.  In  this  they  were  undoubtedly  right.  Had  the 
Committee  agreed  upon  a  plan  for  the  proposed  division,  and 


18  A    HISTORY    OF    THE 

the  Assembly  adopted  it,  the  act  would  not  liave  been  bind- 
ing without  the  consent  of  the  Presbyteries.  An  able  writer 
on  this  subject  has  well  remarked,  "  According  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  this  Committee  of  ten,  or  even  the 
whole  Assembly,  had  no  more  right  to  divide  the  Church 
than  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in  Congress  has  to 
divide  the  Union." 

Moreover,  those  who  labored  to  eflfect  an  immediate  divis- 
ion, insisted  on  holding  the  charter,  with  all  its  privileges 
and  franchises,  in  their  own  hands.  This,  had  it  been  granted 
them,  would,  in  any  case,  have  made  them  secure,  while 
those  from  whom  they  wished  to  be  separated  would  have 
had  nothing  on  which  to  depend  but  fair  promises,  which 
often  mock  the  hopes  of  those  who  confide  in  them.  To 
such  a  division,  the  members  of  the  Committee,  representing 
the  minority'  in  the  Assembly,  could  not  consent,  withoiit  a 
shameful  dereliction  of  their  duty.  It  would  have  been  a 
betrayal  of  the  confidence,  and  a  surrender  of  the  rights  of 
brethren,  who  Avere  conscientiously  struggling  to  maintain 
their  chartered  rights,  and  preserve  the  constitution  of  the 
church  inviolate. 

The  measure  adopted  for  an  amicable  division  of  the  church 
having  failed,  the  majority  resolvod  to  effect  a  separation  by 
another  method.  They  then  passed  the  following  resolution 
by  a  vote  of  132  members,  105  voting  against  it — viz. : 

*'  Resolved,  That,  by  the  operation  of  the  abrogation  of  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  the  Synod  of  Western  Reserve  is,  and 
is  hereby  declared  to  be  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  in  the  United  States  of  America." — Minutes  of 
the  Assembly  of  183*7,  page  440. 

The  men  who  were  professedly  engaged  in  labors  *'  to 
effect  the  purificition,  and  ensure  the  permanent  peace  of  the 
church,"  were  not  satisfied  to  pause  here.  They  doubtless 
feared  that  they  had  not  done  enough  to  perpetuate  the 
power  of  which  they  were  then  possessed,  and  were  wielding 
with  such  terrible  efficiency.     Hence  they  subsequently  in- 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  19 

trodiiced  the  following  resolutions,  wliich  were  passed  by  tlie 
Assembly,  viz.  :  — 

'*  Be  it  Resolved,  By  tlic  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 

1.  "  That  in  consequence  of  the  abrogation  by  this  Assem- 
bly, of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl,  between  it  and  the  Gen- 
eral Association  of  Connecticut,  as  utterly  unconstitutional, 
and  therefore  null  and  void  from  the  beginning,  the  Synods 
of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee,  which  were  formed  and  at- 
tached to  this  body  under  and  in  execution  of  said  Plan  of 
Union,  be  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be  out  of  the  eccle- 
siastical connection  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  that  they  are  not  in  form  or  in  fact 
an  integral  portion  of  said  Church." 

In  favor  of  this  resolution  115  votes  were  ofiven  and  88 
against  it,  the  ministers  and  elders  from  the  Synod  of  West- 
ern Reserve  not  being  allowed  to  vote.  They  then  passed 
three  other  resolutions,  of  which  it  is  necessary  here  to  notice 
only  the  one  numbered  second,  and  is  as  follows,  viz. : — 

*'  2.  That  the  solicitude  of  this  Assembly  on  the  whole 
subject,  and  its  urgency  for  the  immediate  decision  of  it,  are 
greatly  increased  by  reason  of  the  gross  disorders  which  are 
ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in  those  Synods,  (as  well  as 
that  of  Western" Reserve,  against  which  a  declarative  resolu- 
tion, similar  to  the  first  of  these,  has  been  passed  during  our 
present  sessions),  it  being  made  clear  to  us,  that  even  the  Plan 
of  Union  itself  was  never  consistently  carried  into  effect  by 
those  professing  to  act  under  it." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly 
of  1837,  par/es  444,  445. 

For  the  purpose  of  preventing  any  members  from  the 
exscinded  Synods  from  obtaining  seats  in  the  next  General 
Assembly,  they  appointed  "a  Committee  to  confer  Avith  the 
officers  of  the  Assembly,  who  compose  the  Committee  of 
Commissions,  to  procure  from  them  a  pledge  to  carry  out 
the  action  of  the  Assembly  in  their  official  character  to  its 


20  A    HISTORY    OF    THE 

full  accomplishment." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1838, 
page  15. 

Even  all  this  Avas  not  suflScient  to  satisfy  the  ruling  spirits 
of  the  majority  of  the  Assembly.  The  Rev.  Robert  L.  Breck- 
inridge offered  a  series  of  resolutions,  which,  after  being 
amended,  were  passed  as  follows,  viz. : — 

"  Be  it  resolved,  By  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 

"  1.  That  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  be,  and 
hereby  is  dissolved. 

''2.  The  territory  embraced  in  this  Presbytery  is  re-an- 
nexed to  those  to  which  it  respectively  appertained  before 
its  creation.  Its  Stated  Clerk  is  directed  to  deposit  all  the 
records  and  other  papers  in  the  hands  of  the  Stated  Clerk  of 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  the 
sessions  of  that  Synod,  at  its  first  meeting  after  this  Assem- 
bly adjourns. 

"  3.  The  candidates  and  foreign  missionaries  of  the  Third 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  are  hereby  attached  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia. 

*'  4.  The  ministers,  churches  and  licentiates,  in  the  Pres- 
bytery hereby  dissolved,  are  directed  to  apply  without  delay 
to  the  Presbyteries  to  which  they  most  naturally  belong,  for 
admission  into  them.  And  upon  application  being  so  made 
by  any  duly  organized  Presbyterian  Church,  it  shall  be  re- 
ceived. 

*'  5.  These  resolutions  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after  the 
final  adjournment  of  the  present  sessions  of  the  General 
Assembly." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  pages  472, 
473. 

Against  these  acts  of  the  Assembly  by  which  four  Synods, 
five  hundred  ministers,  and  about  sixty  tliousand  communi- 
cants, against  whom  no  charge  of  heresy  or  immorality  had 
been  substantiated,  were  declared  to  be  out  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  and  an  important  Presbytery  was  dissolved, 
the  minority  solemnly  protested,  but  in  vain.     In  their  reply 


DIVISION    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  21 

to  the  protest  of  tlie  members  from  the  Synod  of  Western 
Reserve,  the  majority  say  expressly,  ''  tliey  had  710  right  to 
join  in  a  protest  against  any  decision  of  the  Assembly,  or  to 
have  their  protest  admitted  to  record."  These  arbitrary  and 
unrighteous  acts  were  the  proximate  cause  of  tlie  division  of 
the  church.  In  a  subsequent  part  of  this  narrative,  they 
will  be  examined  and  placed  in  their  true  light. 


THE  GROUNDS  ON  WTIICn  THE  MAJORTTT  ATTEMPTED  TO  JUSTIFY  THEIR 
EXSCINDING  ACTS  AND  THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  THIRD  PRESBYTERY  OF 
PHILADELPHIA,  STATED. 

That  we  may  not  misrepresent  the  views  of  our  brethren, 
respecting  these  extraordinary  measures,  but  present  fairly  the 
grounds  on  which  they  attempted  to  justify  them,  we  shall 
state  them  mainly  in  their  own  language  as  contained  in  the 
answers  to  the  protests  against  them,  and  the  review  of  the 
acts  of  the  Assembly  in  the  Biblical  Repertory  of  July,  1837. 

The  first  ground  on  which  they  attempted  to  justify  their 
exscinding  acts,  and  on  which  they  placed  their  main  reliance, 
was  the  alleged  unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of 
ISOl.  In  their  reply  to  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the 
Assembly,  they  make  this  important  preliminary  statement, 
which  the  reader,  who  would  fully  possess  himself  of  the 
absurdity  of  their  acts,  would  do  well  to  bear  in  mind. 

"  We  believe,"  say  they,  "  that  our  powers  as  a  judicatory 
are  limited  and  prescribed  by  the  constitution  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  Whatever  any  Assembly  may  do,  which 
it  is  not  authorized  by  the  constitution  to  do,  is  not  binding 
on  any  inferior  judicatory,  nor  on  any  subsequent  Assembly." 
They  then  say, 

"  The  constitution  provides  that  all  our  judicatories  shall 
be  composed  of  bishops  or  ministers  and  ruhng  elders  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  General  Assembly  have  no 
nght  to  introduce  into  any  of  the  judicatories  any  other  per- 


ACTS    OF    EXCISION.  23 

sons  claiming  to  hold  any  other  offices,  either  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  or  any  other  church.  And  should  they  at- 
tempt to  do  this,  no  one  is  bound  by  it.  But  the  General 
Assembly  of  1801  did  permit  members  of  standing  commit- 
tees in  churches  not  Presbyterian,  *  to  sit  and  act'  in  our 
Presbyteries,  and  under  this  provision  they  have  sat  in  the 
higher  judicatories  of  the  church." 

"  On  a  thorough  investigation  it  is  now  fully  ascertained 
that  they  had  no  authority  from  the  constitution  to  admit 
officers  from  any  other  denomination  of  Christians  to  sit  and 
act  in  our  judicatories  ;  and  therefore,  no  Presbytery  or  Synod 
thus  constituted,  is  recognized  by  the  constitution  of  our 
church,  and  no  subsequent  General  Assembly  is  bound  to 
recognize  them." 

"  The  Presbyteries  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve 
are  thus  constituted,  for  committee-men  are  permitted  '  to  sit 
and  act '  in  all  these  Presbyteries ;  therefore  this  General 
Assembly  cannot  recognize  the  constitutional  existence  of 
these  Presbyteries." 

"  The  fact  that  they  have  been  recognized  by  former  As- 
semblies cannot  bind  this  Assembly,  when  it  is  fully  con- 
vinced of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  organization.  The 
existence  of  Presbyteries  thus  constituted  is  recognized 
neither  in  the  former  nor  the  amended  constitution  of  the 
church." 

"  The  representatives  of  these  churches,  on  the  accommo- 
dation plan,  form  a  constituent  part  of  these  Presbyteries  as 
reallg  as  the  pastors  or  elders,  and  this  Assembly  can  recog- 
nize no  Presbytery,  thus  constituted,  as  belonging  to  the  Pres- 
byterian Churchy 

"The  Assembly  has  extended  the  operation  of  this  princi- 
ple to  other  Synods,  which  tiiey  find  similarly  constituted." — 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  iiages  450,  451. 

The  Biblical  Repertory,  in  presenting  the  arguments  of  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  in  favor  of  their  resolution,  which 
declared  the   Synod  of  Western  Reserve  "  no  longer  a  part 


24  ATTEMPTED    JUSTIFICATION 

of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America," 
gives  the  same  views  with  those  presented  in  the  preceding 
extracts  from  their  answer  to  the  protest,  but  with  consider- 
able amphfication.  That  we  may  present  their  views  fairly 
and  fully,  we  give  the  substance  of  their  vindication  in  the 
language  of  the  Repertory. 

"The  resolution,"  it  says,  ''declares  that  the  Western 
Reserve  Synod  is  not  a  regular  portion  of  our  Church,  and 
it  rests  this  declaration  on  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan 
of  Union.  Of  course,  it  is  here  assumed,  first,  that  this 
Plan  is  unconstitutional,  and  secondly,  that  the  Synod  in 
question  is  in  the  Church  only  in  virtue  of  that  plan.  Re- 
specting the  first  of  these  assumptions,  the  Repertory  says, 
*'  It  is  in  fact  as  plain  as  that  a  Congregational  Church  is  not 
a  Presbyterian  Church."  It  then  adds,  "  With  regard  to 
the  second  point,  we  admit  that  something  more  is  necessary 
than  merely  to  prove  that  the  Plan  of  Union  is  unconstitu- 
tional. It  must  be  shown  in  the  first  place  that  the  churches 
within  the  bounds  of  this  Synod  were  formed  on  the  basis 
of  this  plan ;  secondly,  that  the  abrogation  of  the  plan  ef- 
fects the  separation  of  these  churches  from  this  body  ;  and 
thirdly,  that  the  connection  of  the  Synod  is  of  necessity  also 
thereby  dissolved.  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  points," 
the  Repertory  states,  "  it  is,  as  a  general  fact,  a  matter  of  his- 
torical notoriety,  and  might  be  as  safely  assumed  as  that  the 
United  States  were  originally  British  colonies."  The  ques- 
tion then  is,  does  the  abrogation  of  that  Plan  dissolve  this 
connection  ?  It  undoubtedly  does,  unless  you  take  measures 
to  prevent  it,  and  declare  the  contrary.  The  General  Assem- 
bly has  a  resolution  declaring  that  churches  organized  in  a 
certain  way  may  be  connected  with  our  body :  afterwards  they 
rescind  that  resolution — what  is  the  consequence  ?  Why 
certainly  to  withdraw  the  permission  and  dissolve  the  con- 
nection. The  connection  was  formed  by  the  first  resolution, 
it  lasts  while  the  resolution  continues,  and  ceases  when  it  is 
repeaj^ed."     "  It  is,  however  objected  that  where  a  law  is  of 


,    OF   THE    ACTS    OF    EXCISION.  25 

the  nature  of  a  contract,  its  repeal  cannot  invalidate  the 
rights  which  have  vested  under  it.  We  admit  the  principle 
freely,  but  we  ask  what  is  law  ?  It  is  an  enactment  made 
by  competent  authority,  in  the  exercise  of  its  legitimate  pow- 
ers. An  act  passed  by  a  body  that  had  no  right  to  pass  it, 
is  no  law;  it  has  no  binding  force;  it  is  legally  nothing,  and 
can  give  existence  to  nothing  legal.  Even  admitting  that 
the  Plan  of  Union  adopted  in  1801  was  of  the  nature  of  a 
contract,  yet  if  the  Plan  is  unconstitutional,  it  is  void ;  it 
has  existed  hitherto  only  by  suflferance,  and  may  at  any  time 
be  set  aside.  There  is,  however,  an  unfairness  in  this  mode 
of  presenting  the  case.  The  Plan  of  Union  is  not  a  contract 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word ;  nor  have  absolute  rights 
vested  under  it  according  to  the  common  use  of  those  terms. 
The  Plan  of  Union  is  little  else  than  a  declaration  on  the 
part  of  the  Assembly  that  it  will  recognize  churches  organ- 
ized in  a  certain  way.  The  connection  formed  was  perfectly 
voluntary  ;  one  which  either  party  might  dissolve  at  pleas- 
ure." 

*'  The  next  question  to  be  decided  is,  whether,  admitting 
the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  that  the 
churches  formed  upon  it  are  now  no  part  of  our  Church,  does 
this  authorize  the  declaration  that  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve  is  no  longer  connected  with  this  body  ?  We  an- 
swer this  question  in  the  affirmative.  According  to  the  con- 
stitution of  our  Church,  *  As  a  Presbytery  is  a  convention  of 
the  Bishops  and  Elders  within  a  certain  district :  so  a  Synod 
is  a  convention  of  the  Bishops  and  Elders  within  a  larger 
district,  including  at  least  three  Presbyteries.'  The  question 
then  is,  are  these  Presbyteries  or  this  Synod  conventions  of 
Bishops  and  Elders  ?  This  question  has  been  already  an- 
swered.    They  are  not  such  conventions." 

"  Again,  on  the  supposition  that  after  all  these  accommoda- 
tion churches  are  disconnected  with  this  body,  the  Presby- 
teries and  Synod  still  retain  their  connection,  we  should  have 
Presbyteries  and  a  Synod  composed  almost  entirely  of  min- 


26 


ATTEMPTED    JUSTIFICATION 


isters.  These  are  not  regular  Presb3'terian  bodies.  It  is  said, 
however,  that  since  there  ai-e  regular  churches  and  pastors 
within  the  hmits  embraced  by  these  bodies,  they  are  Presby- 
teries and  a  Synod  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution. 
The  fallacy  of  this  argument  is  obvious.  These  materials  are 
indeed  included  within  the  Synod,  but  do  not  constitute  it." 
— Biblical  Repertori/,  July,  1837,  pages  454,  455,  458,  459, 
460,  461. 

The  foregoing  extracts  from  the  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  the  Biblical  Pvepertory  are  sufficient  to  make 
the  first  ground  on  which  the  Assembly  attempted  to  justify 
the  excision  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve,  unmistak- 
ably evident.  The  allegtd  unconstitutionality  oi  the  Plan  of 
Union,  they  likewise  urged  in  justification  of  the  excision  of 
.the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee.  The  only  thing 
in  regard  to  which  these  Synods  differed  from  that  of  Western 
Reserve  was  this — in  1808,  "The  Synod  of  Albany  requested 
the  Assembly  to  sanction  a  plan  of  union  and  correspondence 
between  themselves  and  the  Northern  Associate  Presbytery, 
and  the  Middle  Association  in  the  Western  District,  in  the 
State  of  New  York.  The  plan  being  read,  and  the  subject 
discussed.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  sanction  the  aforesaid 
plan." — Assembh/s  Digest,  page  310. 

The  Commissioners  from  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva  and 
Genesee,  in  their  protest  against  the  act  by  which  those 
Synods  were  *'  declared  to  be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of 
America,"  stated,  that  "the  majority  of  the  churches  within 
the  bounds  of  said  Synods  were  strictly  Presbyterian  in  their 
structure,  and  with  few  exceptions,  even  the  small  number  of 
churches  originally  Congregational,  were  not  organized  under 
the  stipulations  of  the  said  Plan  of  Union,  but  came  in  under 
a  different  arrangement,  and  possessed  rights  on  this  subject 
secured  to  them  hj  the  Assembly  of  1808,  by  which  the  Synod 
of  Albany  was  authorized  to  take  the  Middle  Association  un- 
der its  care." — Minutts  of  the  Assembly  of  1831 ,  page  465. 


OF  THE    ACTS    OF    EXCISION.  27 

To  this  the  Assembly  rephed — "  The  compact  of  the  As- 
sembly of  1808  with  the  Synod  of  Albany,  in  reference  to 
the  Middle  Association,  is  as  unconstitutional  as  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801." 

The  Assembly,  after  having  declared  the  four  Synods  "  to 
be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,"  passed  the  following  resolution,  expressive  of  the 
bearing  of  the  act  upon  the  exscinded  ministers  and  churches, 
viz. : 

"  That  the  General  Assembly  has  no  intention,  by  these 
resolutions,  or  by  that  passed  in  the  case  of  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Pteserve,  to  affect  in  any  way  the  ministerial 
standing  of  any  members  of  either  of  said  Synods  ;  nor  to 
disturb  the  pastoral  relation  in  any  Church  ;  nor  to  interfere 
with  the  duties  or  relations  of  private  Christians  in  their  re- 
spective congregations  ;  but  only  to  declare  and  determine 
according  to  the  truth  and  necessity  of  the  case,  and  by  vir- 
tue of  the  full  authority  existing  in  it  for  that  purpose,  the 
relation  of  all  said  Synods,  and  all  their  constituent  parts,  to 
this  body,  and  to  the  Presbyterian  Clmrch  in  the  United 
States." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1831,  2y((ge  445. 

On  this  subject  the  Biblical  Repertory  makes  similar  state- 
ments. In  reporting  the  arguments  of  the  exscinders  in 
favor  of  their  exscinding  acts,  it  says,  **  In  support  of  the 
resolution,  it  was  urged, — That  it  was  neither  in  intention 
nor  fact  an  act  of  discipline.  Such  act  supposes  an  offence, 
a  trial,  and  a  sentence.  The  resolution,  however,  charges  no 
offence,  it  proposes  no  trial,  it  threatens  no  sentence.  It  pur- 
ports merely  to  declare  a  fact,  and  assigns  a  reason  for  the 
declaration.  It  is  neither  the  form  nor  the  operation  of  judi- 
cial process.  Should  the  resolution  be  adopted,  it  will  not 
affect  the  standing  of  the  members  of  this  Synod  as  Chris- 
tians, as  ministers  or  pastors.  It  will  simply  alter  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  do  not  propose  to 
excommunicate  them  as  church  members,  or  to  depose  them 
as  ministers.     We  do  7iot  withdraw  our  confidence  from  them^ 


28  ATTEMPTED    JUSTIFICATION 

or  intend  to  cast  any  imputation  on  them.  We  simply  de- 
clare tliat  they  are  not  constitutionally  a  part  of  our  church." 
— Biblical  Repertory,  July  1837,  pa^/es  453,  454. 

This  language  certainly  expresses  a  settled  determination 
not  to  slander,  nor  pursue  with  invective,  nor  do  any  injury 
to  those  whom  they  had  ruthlessly  cast  out  of  the  churcli. 
Nay,  it  asserts  that  they  do  not  even  loithdraw  their  confi- 
dence from  them.  This  is  kind  indeed.  Whether  the  kind- 
ness professed  has  been  actually  shown,  the  reader  may  judge 
after  having  examined  the 

2d  Ground  on  which  they  attempted  to  justify  their  acts 
of  excision.  This  is  alleged  departures  from  the  doctrine  and 
order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  2d  Resolution  passed 
respecting  the  Synods  declared  to  be  no  longer  a  part  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  is  in  these  words, 
viz.  : 

"  That  the  solicitude  of  the  Assembly  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject, and  its  urgency  for  the  immediate  decision  of  it,  are 
greatly  increased  by  reason  of  the  gross  disorders  which  are 
ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in  those  Synods,  (as  well  as 
that  of  the  Western  Reserve,  against  which  a  declarative 
resolution,  similar  to  the  first  of  these  [that  is,  the  one  de- 
claring the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee  no  longer 
a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country]  has  been 
passed  during  our  present  sessions),  it  being  made  clear  to 
us,  that  even  the  Plan  of  Union  itself  was  never  consistently 
carried  into  effect  by  those  professing  to  act  under  it." — Min- 
utes of  the  Assembly  of  183*7,  page  445. 

In  the  Biblical  Repertory  we  find  the  following  language 
in  vindication  of  the  excision  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western 
Reserve.  **  All  that  kind  of  evidence  which  produces  moral 
certainty  as  to  the  state  of  things  in  that  region  of  country, 
may  very  properly  be  adduced  as  an  argument  why  we  should 
dissolve  our  connection  with  a  body  in  which  our  system  is 
openly  disregarded.  We  presume  there  is  not  an  individual 
on  this  floor,  who  is  not  perfectly  satisfied  that  there  are  such 


OF  THE    ACTS    OF    EXCISION.  29 

frequent  and  serious  departures  from  presbyteriai  order  per- 
mitted within  the  bounds  of  this  Synod,  as  would  justify  its 
excision  by  judicial  process. — The  departures  from  Presby- 
terianism  in  this  region  are  not  confined  to  matters  of  gov- 
ernments ;  w^c  have  every  evidence  such  a  case  admits  of, 
that  what  we  believe  to  be  serious  departures  from  our  doc- 
trinal standards,  prevail  throughout  this  Synod.  We  know 
what  is  the  theology  of  Oberlin  Seminary ;  we  know  what 
opinions  the  commissioners  from  these  Presbyteries  have,  at 
various  times,  avowed  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly ;  we 
know%  and  every  one  else  knows,  that  new-school  theology, 
be  it  good  or  bad,  is  the  theology  of  this  Synod." — Biblical 
Rei^ertory,  July,  1837,  i)age8  465,  466. 

On  page  4*74  of  the  sam  j  work,  we  find  the  following  state- 
ment respecting  the  exsc'nded  Synods  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  "  In  support  of  the  second  resolution,"  (the  one  we 
last  quoted),  "  wliich  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  speedy  de- 
cision of  this  matter  the  prevalence  of  gross  disorders  within 
the  bounds  of  these  Synods,  extracts  from  various  documents 
were  read,  such  as  the  pastoral  letter  of  the  Synod  of  Geneva, 
the  letter  of  the  Association  of  Western  New  York,  Mr.  Fin- 
ney's lectures,  Dr.  Betcher's  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New 
York  Observer,  &c.  These  documents  were  read  not  as 
evidence  but  argimients  If  it  is  true  that  extravagance  and 
fanaticism  have  prevailed  to  a  great  extent  in  this  region  of 
country,  it  is  certainly  a  strong  reason  for  dissolving  our  con- 
nection with  these  churches." 

Near  the  close  of  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly,  '*  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  the  memorial"-  of  the  Convention, 
**  which  relates  to  doctrinal  errors,"  was  taken  up  and  adopt- 
ed as  follows,  viz.  : — 

**  As  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  the  memorialists  is  to 
point  out  certain  errors,  more  or  less  prevalent  in  our  church, 
and  to  bear  testimony  against  them,  your  committee  are  of 
opinion,  that  as  one  great  object  of  the  institution  of  the 
church  was  to  be  a  depository  and  guardian  of  the  truth ; 
2 


30  ATTEMPTED    JUSTIFICATION 

and  as,  by  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  testify  against  error ;  therefore,  resolved,  that  the 
testimony  of  the  memorialists  concerning  doctrine,  be  adopt- 
ed as  the  testimon3^  of  this  General  Assembly,  ("vvith  a  few 
verbal  alterations,)  which  is  as  follows  : 

1.  That  God  would  have  prevented  the  existence  of  sin 
in  our  world,  but  was  not  able  without  destroying  the  moral 
agency  of  man :  or,  that  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  Bible 
to  the  contrary,  sin  is  incidental  to  any  wise  moral  system. 
"  2.  That  election  to  eternal  life  is  founded  on  a  foresight  of 
faith  and  obedience. 

3.  That  we  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  first  sin  of 
Adam  than  with  the  sins  of  any  other  parent. 

4.  That  infants  come  into  the  world  as  free  from  moral  de- 
filement as  was  Adam,  when  he  was  created. 

5.  That  infants  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  moral  go- 
vernment of  God  in  this  world  as  brute  animals,  and  that 
their  sufferings  and  death  are  to  be  accounted  for,  on  the  same 
principles  as  those  of  brutes,  and  not  by  any  means  to  be 
considered  as  penal. 

6.  That  there  is  no  other  original  sin  than  the  fact  that  all 
the  posterity  of  Adam,  though  by  nature  innocent,  or  pos- 
sessed of  no  moral  character,  will  always  begin  to  sin  when 
they  begin  to  exercise  moral  agency  ;  that  original  sin  does 
not  include  a  sinful  bias  of  the  human  mind,  and  a  just  ex- 
posure to  penal  suffering ;  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  in 
Scripture,  that  infants,  in  order  to  salvation,  do  need  redemp- 
tion by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

7.  That  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  whether  of  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin,  or  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  has  no  founda- 
tion in  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  both  unjust  and  absurd. 

8.  That  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were  not  truly 
vicarious  and  penal,  but  symbolical,  governmental,  and  in- 
structive only. 


OP  THE    ACTS    OF    EXCISION.  31 

9.  Tliat  the  impenitent  sinner  is  by  nature,  and  independ- 
ently of  the  renewing  influence  or  almighty  energy  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  full  possession  of  all  the  ability  necessary  to 
a  full  compliance  with  all  the  commands  of  God. 

10.  That  Christ  does  not  intercede  for  the  elect  until  after 
their  re o-ene ration. 

o 

11.  That  saving  faith  is  not  an  effect  of  the  special  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  a  mere  rational  belief  of  the  truth, 
or  assent  to  the  Word  of  God. 

12.  That  regeneration  is  the  act  of  the  sinner  himself,  and 
that  it  consists  in  a  change  of  his  governing  purpose,  which 
he  himself  must  produce,  and  which  is  the  result,  not  of  any 
direct  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  but  chiefly  of 
a  persuasive  exhibition  of  the  truth,  analogous  to  the  influ- 
ence which  one  man  exerts  over  the  mind  of  another ;  or  that 
regeneration  is  not  an  instantaneous  act,  but  a  progressive 
work. 

13.  That  God  has  done  all  that  he  can  do  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  and  that  man  himself  must  do  the  rest. 

14.  That  God  cannot  exert  such  influence  on  the  minds  of 
men,  as  shall  make  it  certain  that  they  will  choose  and  act 
in  a  particular  manner  without  impairing  their  moral  agency. 

15.  That  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  the  sole  ground 
of  the  sinner's  ai^ceptance  with  God ;  and  that  in  no  sense 
does  the  righteousness  of  Christ  become  ours. 

16.  That  the  reason  why  some  diff'er  from  others  in  re- 
gard to  their  reception  of  the  gospel  is,  that  they  make  them- 
selves to  diff'er. 

Against  all  these  errors,  whenever,  wherever,  and  by 
whomsoever  taught,  the  Assembly  would  solemnly  testify  ; 
and  would  warn  all  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  against  them.  They  would  also  enjoin  it  upon  all 
the  inferior  judicatories  to  adopt  all  suitable  measures  to 
keep  their  members  pure  from  opinions  so  dangerous.  Es- 
pecially does  the  Assembly  earnestly  enjoin  on  all  the  Presby- 
teries to  guard  with  great  care  the  door  of  entrance  to  the 


32  ATTEMPTED    JUSTIFICATION 

sacred  office.  Nor  can  the  Assembly  regard  as  consistent 
with  ministerial  ordination  vows,  an  unwillingness  to  discip- 
line according  to  the  rules  of  the  Word  of  God  and  of  our 
standards,  any  person  already  a  teacher,  who  may  give  cur- 
rency to  the  foregoing  errors." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of 
1837,  pages  468,  469. 

In  the  "  Circular  Letter"  addressed  by  the  Assembly  "to 
all  the  churches  of  Jesus  Christ,"  in  justification  of  their  acts, 
they  say, 

"  As  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  all  Christian  hope,  as  well  as  of  the  purity  and  prosperity 
of  the  church,  we  felt  ourselves  bound  to  direct  early  and 
peculiarly  solemn  attention  to  those  doctrinal  errors  which, 
there  was  but  too  much  evidence,  had  gained  an  alarming 
prevalence  in  some  of  our  judicatories.  The  advocates  of 
these  errors,  on  their  first  appearance,  were  cautious  and  re- 
served, alleging  that  they  differed  in  words  only  from  the 
doctrines  as  stated  in  our  public  standards.  Very  soon,  how- 
ever, they  began  to  contend  that  their  opinions  were  really 
new,  and  were  a  substantial  and  important  improvement  on 
the  old  creed  of  the  church ;  and  at  length,  that  revivals  of 
rehgion  could  not  be  hoped  for,  and  the  souls  of  men  must 
be  destroyed,  if  the  old  doctrines  continued  to  be  preached. 
The  errors  thus  promulged  were  by  no  means  of  that 
doubtful  or  unimportant  character,  which  seems  to  be  as- 
signed to  them  even  by  some  of  the  professed  friends  of  or- 
thodoxy. You  will  see,  by  our  pubhshed  acts,  that  some  of 
them  affect  the  very  foundation  of  the  system  of  Gospel 
truth,  and  that  they  all  bear  relations  to  the  Gospel  plan,  of 
very  serious  and  ominous  import.  Surely,  doctrines  which 
go  to  the  formal  or  virtual  denial  of  our  covenant  relation  to 
Adam ;  the  native  and  total  depravity  of  man ;  the  entire 
inability  of  the  sinner  to  recover  himself  from  rebellion  and 
corruption ;  the  nature  and  source  of  regeneration  ;  and  our 
justification  solely  on  account  of  the  imputed  righteousness 
of  the  Redeemer,  cannot,  upon  any  just  principle,  be  regarded 


OF    THE    ACTS     OF    EXCISION.  33 

as  'minor  errors.*  They  form,  in  fact,  'another  Gospel;' 
and  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  faithfully  adhere  to  our 
public  standards,  to  walk  with  those  who  adopt  such  opin- 
ions with  either  comfort  or  confidence." — Minutes  of  the  As- 
semhly  of  1837,  pages  503,  504. 

The  Assembly's  attempted  vindication  of  their  act,  dis- 
solving the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  we  give  in 
their  own  langruao^e. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  evidence  before  this  Assembly,  es- 
tablishing the  evil  effects  of  the  existence  of  this  Presbytery, 
is  ample  ;  that  the  principle  on  which  it  was  formed,  and  on 
which  it  has  existed  up  to  this  time,  viz.,  that  of  elective 
affinity,  is  now  on  all  hands  admitted  to  be  unconstitutional ; 
and   lastly,  that  being  originally  formed  by  the  Assembly, 
none  can  question  the  right  of  that  body  to  dissolve  it,  when- 
ever its  continued  existence  is  found  to  be  injurious  to  truth 
and  charity." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  page  488. 
The  grounds  on  which  the  Assembly  attempted  to  justify 
(X  their  abrogation  of  the  ''  Plan  of  Union"  and  acts  declaring 
':,  four  Synods  no  longer  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  these  United  States,  and  dissolving  the  Third  Pres- 
bytery of  Philadelphia,  are  now  before  the  reader.     Their 
utter  indefensibility  will  now  be  shown. 


CI]ll^tU  %\iix)i. 


TIIE  GROUNDS  ON  \VHICH  THE  ASSEMBLY  ATTEMPTED  TO  JUSTIFY  THEIR 
ABROGATION  OF  THE  "PLAK  OF  UNION,"  THE  EXCISION  OF  THE  FOUR 
SYNODS,  AND  DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  THIRD  PRESBYTERY  OF  PHILADELPHIA, 
EXAMINED. 

The  alleged  reason  for  abrogating  the  "  Plan  of  Union," 
was  its  unconstitutionality.  In  regard  to  this,  different  opin- 
ions have  been  entertained  by  those  who  opposed  its  abroga- 
tion in  the  Assembly  and  those  who  now  regard  it  as  grossly 
unrighteous.  Some  then  believed,  and  many  noiv  beheve, 
that  the  constitution  authorized  the  adoption  of  the  "  Plan  of 
Union."  Of  this  opinion  were  both  the  judges  before  whom 
the  suits,  which  originated  in  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  com- 
plained of,  were  tried.  Judge  Gibson,  in  dehvering  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Court  in  Bank,  said  it  was  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment, and  acquired  the  force  of  a  law  without  the  sanction  of 
the  Presbyteries.  "  It  was  evidently,"  he  said,  *'  not  intend- 
ed to  be  permanent,  and  it  consequently  was  constitutionally 
enacted."  In  his  charge  to  the  jury.  Judge  Rogers  remark- 
ed, ''So  far  from  believing  the  'Plan  of  Union'  unconstitu- 
tional, I  concur  fully  with  one  of  the  counsel,  that  confined 
within  its  legitimate  limits,  it  is  an  arrangement  or  regulation, 
which  the  General  Assembly  not  only  had  power  to  make, 
but  that  it  is  one  which  is  well  calculated  to  promote  the  best 
interests  of  religion." 

We  admit  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Chuch 
does  not  expressly  provide  for  such  a  "  Plan  of  Union"  as 
that  now  under  consideration.  Nor  does  it  for  the  plan  of 
mutual  correspondence  between  the  General  Assembly  of  the 


JUSTIFICATION     EXAMINED.  35 

Presbyterian  Cliurcli  and  the  Congregational  Bodies  of  New 
England.  No  call  has  been  made,  however,  for  the  abroga- 
tion  of  the  latter  plan,  on  the  ground  of  its  unconstitution- 
ality. If  the  constitution  does  not  contain  an  express  provis- 
ion  for  these  plans,  it  certainly  does  not  prohibit  them. 

So  far,  however,  as  the  vindication  of  the  act  by  which  the 
"  Plan  of  Union"  was  abrogated,  is  concerned,  we  deem  it  of 
very  little  importance  whether  [^its  adoption  were  or  ivere  not 
strictly  conformed  to  the  letter  of  the  constitution.  It  was 
proposed  by  the  General  Assembly  to  the  General  Associa- 
tion of  Connecticut,  formally  adopted  by  both  bodies,  and 
acted  upon  in  good  faith  for  more  than  one-third  of  a  cen- 
tury by  them,  and  the  churches  organized  in  conformity  with 
its  provisions.  In  these  circumstances  the  discourtesy  of  its 
abroofation  toward  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut, 
and  its  gross  injustice  to  the  churches  formed  under  it,  are 
quite  sufficient  to  doom  it  to  utter  and  everlasting  reproba- 
tion. 

Toward  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  it  was  a 
flagrant  violation  of  the  laws  of  Christian  courtesy.  With- 
out the  concurrence  of  that  body  the  General  Assembly 
could  not  have  adopted  the  Plan.  This  was  by  them  per- 
fectly known.  Hence,  when  they  presented  the  Plan  to  the 
Association,  they'  employed  the  following  language — viz., 
"  Regulations  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  America  and  by  the  General  Association 
of  Connecticut,  [provided  said  Association  agree  to  them.") 
After  their  proposal  had  been  accepted  by  the  Association 
and  both  bodies  had  acted  upon  it  for  thirty-six  years,  how 
manifestly  and  grossly  uncourteous  toward  their  New  Eng- 
land brethren  was  its  abrogation,  without  first  asking  their 
consent !  Of  such  discourtesy  no  former  Assembly  had  been 
guilty.  In  1*794  a  mutual  agreement  was  entered  into  by  the 
General  Assembly  and  the  General  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, securing  to  the  delegates,  to  their  bodies  respectively, 
the  right  to  vote  on  all  questions  which  should  be  determined 


36  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

by  either  of  them.  The  Assembly  of  1826  deemed  it  desir- 
able that  this  right  should  be  tciken  away.  They  did  not  feel, 
however,  that  they  were  authorized  to  do  it  without  first  ask- 
ing the  consent  of  the  Association.  This  was  done,  and  since 
1827,  by  the  consent  of  both  bodied,  their  delegates  have  had 
the  right  to  sit  and  deliberate,  but  not  to  vote.  The  Assem- 
bly of  1835  were  desirous  that  no  more  churches  should  be 
formed  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  *'  Plan  of  Union  of 
1801."  They  did  not,  however,  ordain  that  none  should  be. 
They  did  no  more  than  pass  the  following  resolution,  viz. : — 
"Resolved,  That  our  brethren  of  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut  be,  and  they  hereby  are  respectfully  requested  to 
consent  that  said  Plan  be,  from  and  after  the  next  meeting  of 
that  Association,  declared  to  be  annulled." — Mbmtes  of  the 
Assembly  of  18S5,  page  29. 

In  respect  to  the  rights  of  their  Congregational  brethren 
and  Christian  courtesy  toward  them,  what  a  sad  departure 
from  the  course  pursued  by  the  Assembly  of  1835,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  annulling  of  the  "  Plan  of  Union,"  and  that  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837  to  secure  its  abrogation !  The  former 
resp)ectfully  request  the  Association  to  consent  that  no  more 
churches  be  formed  under  it ;  the  latter,  without  uttering  a 
syllable  in  their  ear  on  the  subject,  abrogated  it,  and  all 
which,  for  thirty-six  years,  had  been  done  in  conformity  with 
its  stipulations.  • 

But  the  gross  injustice  done  by  its  abrogation  to  the 
churches  organized  agreeably  to  its  provisions,  is  a  much 
stronger  ground  of  objection  against  the  act  than  its  discour- 
tesy to  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut.  These 
churches,  though  not  one  of  the  original  parties  in  adopting 
the  plan,  became  a  party  to  it  by  connecting  themselves  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  according  to  its  provisions.  By  it, 
they  were  authorized  to  administer  their  discipline  according 
to  Congregational  or  Presbyterian  principles  of  Church  go- 
vernment, and  call  men  to  the  pastoral  office  among  them 
from  either  denomination.     The  Minutes  of  many  Assem- 


JUSTIFICATION     EXAMINED.  37 

blies  previous  to  the  abrogation  of  the  plan,  show  that  they 
had  sent  up  their  statistical  reports  to  the  Presbyteries  with 
which  they  were  connected,  and  contributed  to  the  funds  of 
the  General  Assembly.  Whether  the  plan  were  or  were  not 
constitutional,  we  see  not  how  it  can  with  justice  or  propriety 
be  denied  that  it  embraced  the  elements  of  a  mutual  com- 
pact or  covenant.  In  this  light  the  plan  of  mutual  represen- 
tation in  the  General  Associations  of  Kew  England  and  the 
General  Assembly  has  been  regarded.  In  1833,  Doctor 
Miller  said,  **  1  have  always  been  a  warm  friend  of  it,  and 
should  be  grieved  at  the  occurrence  of  anything  calculated  to 
interrupt  it,  or  render  it  less  comfortable.  If  no  such  inter- 
course existed,  it  ouo-ht  forthwith  to  be  befjun.  Those  who 
come  so  near  together  as  the  great  body  of  ministers  of  New 
England  and  those  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  ought  un- 
doubtedly to  know  and  love  one  another,  and  to  co-operate 
in  the  great  work  of  enlightening  and  converting  the  world." 
Again  he  says,  **The  articles  of  intercourse  between  the  As- 
sociations of  Kew  England  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  are  to  be  considered  as  a  solemn  ecclesi- 
astical compact,  evidently  intended  to  promote  harmony,  co- 
operation, and  mutual  strength." — History  of  the  Freshyle- 
rian  Controversy,  hy  H.  Woods,  page  43. 

If  the  articles  of  intercourse  between  the  Associations  of 
New  England  and  the  General  Assembly  are  to  be  regarded 
as  solemn  covenants,  much  more  is  the  "  Plan  of  Union," 
which  provides  for  the  organization  of  churches,  the  admin- 
istration of  discipline  and  the  settlement  of  pastors,  to  be  so 
regarded.  In  that  compact  or  covenant,  they  considered 
themselves  a  party,  fulfilled  its  stipulations,  and  expected 
them  to  be  fulfilled  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly.  Had  the 
plan  operated  ever  so  disastrously  to  the  interests  of  the  Pres- 
bytarian  Church,  the  Assembly  would  have  had  no  right  to 
violate  its  plighted  faith  to  the  churches,  which  had  per- 
formed what  the  compact  required  of  them.  So  thought 
the  advocates  of  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  in  the  Assem- 
2* 


38  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

bly  of  1 836.  Kear  the  close  of  the  Assembly  of  the  previous 
year,  a  Committee  was  "  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburg  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  a  supervision  of 
the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  to  the  General  As- 
sembly," and  in  case  of  their  approval  of  such  transfer,  the 
Assembly  *' authorized  them  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same 
with  the  said  Synod,"  The  conductors  of  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory, when  presenting  the  arguments  of  tihe  advocates  of 
this  transfer,  say  expressly,  "  Though  our  Assembly  cannot 
by  an  act  of  ordinary  legislation  bind  its  successors,  yet 
in  all  cases  in  which  contracts  have  been  formed  under  the 
authority  of  our  Assembly,  succeeding  Assemblies  are  bound 
in  honor  and  honesty  to  execute  them." — Ste  July  No.  of 
Repertory  for  1836,  page  421. 

In  that  case,  the  utmost  that  justice  would  have  allowed 
them  to  do,  would  have  been  to  request  those  churches 
to  become  strictly  Presbyterian,  or  connect  themselves 
with  Congregational  associations.  The  Assembly  of  1835, 
wdiich  requested  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  to 
concur  with  them  in  annulling  the  Plan,  were  not  prepared  to 
abrogate  all  that  had  been  done  under  it.  They  "  resolved 
that  the  annulling  of  said  Plan  shall  not  in  any  wise  interfere 
with  the  existence  and  lawful  operations  of  churches  which 
have  been  already  formed  on  this  Plan." — Minutes  of  the 
Assembly  o/  1835,  page  29. 

Had  the  spirit  of  this  resolution  prevailed  in  the  Assembly 
of  183V,  no  act  like  the  one  we  are  now  considering  could 
have  been  passed.  Unhappily,  it  was  under  the  influence  of 
a  very  different  spirit, — a  spirit  which  urged  it  forward  to 
the  act  of  annulling  all  which  for  thirty-six  years  had  been 
done  under  a  solemn  compact.  This  was  a  rash  and  arbi- 
trary act,  subversive  of  the  \erj  foundation  of  sound  morals^ 
and  highly  injurious  to  the  cause  of  evangelical  religion. 

That,  however,  was  not  the  most  objectionable  act  per- 
formed by  that  Assembly.  Had  it  been,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  would  not  have  been  rent  asunder.     The  minority 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  39 

would  then  have  done  nothing  more  than  enter  their  solemn 
protest  ao-ainst  the  act,  declaring  the  **  Plan  of  Union"  null 
and  void  from  the  beginning.  But  after  having  performed 
that  act,  they  declared  four  Synods,  embracing  churches  or- 
ganized under  that  Plan,  no  longer  in  connection  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  By  this  act,  five  hundred  ministers, 
and  sixty  thousand  communicants  in  good  standing,  were 
cast  out  of  the  Church  without  trial,  without  citation  even, 
or  any  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  self-defence.  One  of  the 
grounds  on  which  they  attempted  to  justify  this  arbitrary 
proceeding,  was  the  alleged  unconstitutionality  of  the  "  Plan 
of  Union." 

This  ground  is  wholly  untenable.  The  Synods  and  Pres- 
byteries embraced  in  them,  were  7iot  created  by  that  Plan. 
It  contained  no  provision  for  the  erection  of  either.  The 
reader,  by  turning  to  pages  12  and  13  of  this  narrative,  will 
perceive  at  a  glance  that  it  merely  secured  to  churches  the 
right  of  conducting  their  disciphne,  either  upon  Congrega- 
tional or  Presbyterian  principles,  of  settling  pastors  from 
either  denomination,  and  in  case  difficulties  should  arise  be- 
tween pastors  and  their  flocks,  it  pointed  out  the  methods 
which  they  might  adopt  to  settle  them.  It  also  recommend- 
ed to  churches,  composed  partly  of  Congregationahsts  and 
partly  of  Presbyterians,  to  appoint  a  standing  committee  to 
conduct  their  discipline,  and  allowed  them  to  depute  one  of 
their  number  to  attend  the  Presbytery,  who  should  have  the 
same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  that  body  as  a  ruling  elder.  Not 
a  syllable  does  it  contain  respecting  the  erection  of  Synods 
and  Presbyteries.  For  their  organization  the  constitution 
makes  ample  provision.  It  expressly  asserts  that  the  power 
of  erecting  new  Presbyteries  belongs  to  the  Synod ;  and 
that  of  erecting  new  Synods,  to  the  General  Assembly. 
That  the  exscinded  Presbyteries  and  Synods  were  organized 
in  strict  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, 
we  have  ample  proof.  The  records  of  the  Synods,  containing 
an  account  of  the  organization  of  every  new  Presbytery,  were 


40  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

sent  up  from  year  to  year  to  the  General  Assembly  for  ex- 
amination and  appioval.  Had  there  been  anything  ir- 
regular or  unconstitutional  in  their  organization,  it  surely 
would  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  Assembly.  We 
have  yet  to  learn  that  any  exception  was  ever  taken  to  the 
erection  of  any  one  of  these  Presbyteries,  on  the  ground 
of  irregularity  in  its  organization.  Had  there  been,  their 
commissioners  m^  ould  not  have  been  admitted  to  seats  in  the 
General  Assembly.  Against  the  admission  of  commissioners 
from  Presbj^teries,  not  constitutionally  organized,  tlie  As- 
sembly had  long  exercised  great  vigilance.  For  the  purpose 
of  guarding  effectually  against  it,  the  Assembly  of  1822 
passed  the  following  resolution,  viz. : — 

■  "Resolved,  that  it  be  adopted  as  a  standing  rule  of  this 
house,  that  commissioners  from  newly  formed  Presbyteries 
shall,  before  taking  their  seats  as  members  of  this  body,  pro- 
duce satisfactory  evidence  that  the  Presbyteries  to  which 
they  belong  have  been  regularly  07'ganized,  according  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  and  are  in  connection  with  the 
General  Assembly." — Min.  of  the  Assembly  of  1822,  par/e  20, 

Guarded  as  the  Assembly  had  been  against  receiving  com- 
missioners from  Presbyteries  not  organized  according  to  the 
constitution,  previously  to  1838,  the  commissioners  from 
within  the  bounds  of  the  exscinded  Synods  had  uniformly 
been  admitted  to  seats  in  that  body.  Vv^hat  stronger  proof 
can  be  given  that,  up  to  the  time  of  the  excision  of  the  Synods, 
the  Assembly  had  been  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  Presby- 
teries, which  they  embraced,  had  been  constitutionally  or- 
ganized ? 

The  evidence  of  the  constitutional  ors^anization  of  the 
Synods  is  equally  conclusive.  By  a  reference  to  the  Minutes 
of  the  Assemblies  now  to  be  named,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Assembly  of  1812  constituted  the  Synod  of  Geneva;  that  of 
1821,  the  Synod  of  Genesee;  that  of  1825,  the  Synod  of 
the  Western  Reserve ;  and  that  of  1829,  the  Synod  of  Utica. 

The  "  Plan  of  Union,"  as  we  have  seen,  related  exclusively 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  41 

to  the  government  of  churches,  which,  by  it,  became  connect- 
ed with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  settlement  of  pastors, 
and  the  admission  of  members  of  standino-  committees  to 
seats  in  the  judicatories  of  the  church.  How,  then,  could 
the  abrogation  of  that  Plan,  whether  constitutional  or  not, 
exclude  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  Presbyteries  and 
Synods  which  had  been  organized  in  strict  conformity  with 
the  letter  of  the  constitution  ? 

Our  exscinding  brethren  attempt  to  avoid  this  conclu- 
sion, by  affirming  that  the  organization  of  these  Presbyteries 
and  Synods  was  rendered  unconstitutional  by  permitting 
members  of  standing  committees  in  churches  not  Presbyte- 
rian to  sit,  and  act,  in  the  presbyteries  and  higher  judicato- 
ries. They  say  expressly,  that  they  cannot  recognize  the 
constitutional  existence  of  presbyteries  thus  established,  and 
that  the  fact  of  their  having  been  recognized  by  former  As- 
semblies, had  no  power  to  bind  the  one,  which  declared 
them  no  longer  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  .* 

These  are  sweeping  declarations,  leading  to  consequences 
which,  we  presume,  their  authors  would  be  very  unwilling 
to  admit.  If,  as  they  affirm,  admitting  members  from  other 
denominations  of  Christians  to  sit  and  act  in  the  judicatories 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  vitiates  their  organization,  and 
makes  them  unconstitutional  bodies,  such  Avere  the  Synods 
of  Albany  and  New  Jersey.  Both  of  these  Synods  had 
churches  under  their  care,  whose  discipline  was  conducted 
upon  Congregational  principles,  and  which  were  represented  in 
Presbytery  and  Synod  by  members  of  standing  committees. 
Had  the  Assembly  of  1837  acted  in  conformity  with  the 
principle  by  which  they  attempted  to  justify  the  excision  of 
the  four  Synods,  they  would  have  declared  the  Synods  of 
Albany  and  New  Jersey  no  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Had  they  passed  that  act,  which  a  regard  to  consistency  re- 
quii-ed  them  to  do,  they  would  have  declared  the  Professors 
in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  not  even  except- 

*  Min.  Assembly  of  1837,  pages  450,  451. 


42  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

ing  the  venerable  Docts.  Alexander  and  Miller,  no  longer  in 
connection  with  the  General  Assembly,  as  they  did  the  vener- 
able Doct.  Richards  and  his  associate  Professors  in  the  Se- 
minary at.  Auburn.  Nay,  a  strict  adherence  to  the  principle 
before  stated,  that  the  admission  of  officers  from  any  other 
denomination  of  Christians  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  judicatories 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  destroys  their  constitutionality, 
w^ould  require  the  admission  that  between  the  years  1794 
and  1827 — a  period  of  thirty-three  years,  there  was  no  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  constitutionally  organized.  During  that  pe- 
riod, the  delegates  from  the  General  Association  of  Connec- 
ticut to  the  General  Assembly  enjoyed  all  the  rights  of  its 
own  members.  Our  exscinding  brethren,  we  presume,  are  not 
prepared  to  affirm  that  all  the  acts  of  the  thirty-three  Assem- 
blies, in  which  Congregational  ministers  were  allowed  to 
vote,  are  null  and  void. 

In  justification  of  their  act,  dissolving  the  3d  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  they  assigned  two  reasons.  One  was,  the 
evil  effects  of  its  existence ;  the  other,  that  its  organization 
was  unconstitutional.  The  evils,  resulting  from  its  exist encey 
they  did  not  specify.  They  doubtless  consisted  in  the  ob- 
stacles which  it  opposed  to  the  increase  of  the  power  and 
influence  of  their  party  in  the  Church. 

This  Presbytery  was  constituted  by  the  General  Assembly 
in  1832,  on  the  principle  of  elective  affinity, — a  principle 
which,  it  is  presumed,  all  will  admit  should  be  acted  upon 
only  in  extraordinary  cases,  of  which  that  under  consideration 
was  one.  The  same  party  in  the  old  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, which  was  the  most  zealous  and  active  in  casting 
their  brethren  out  of  the  Church  without  trial  in  1837,  in 
1831  did  all  they  could  to  prevent  the  settlement  of  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes  over  the  1st  Presbyterian  Church  in  that  city. 
For  many  years  previous  an  unhappy  state  of  things  had  ex- 
isted in  that  Presbytery.  A  large  majority  of  its  members 
were  dissatisfied  with  some  of  the  theolomcal  views  of  the 
Rev.  James  P.  Wilson,  D.D,,  for  many  years  the  honored 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  43 

pastor  of  the  1st  Churcli  in  that  city,  and  the  Eev.  Thomas 
H.  Skinner,  D.D.,  pastor  of  the  5th  Church,  and  a  few  others, 
who,  if  they  did  not  agree  with  them  in  all  their  doctrinal 
views,  were  convinced  that  the  opposition  to  the  brethren 
just  named  was  uncalled  for  and  unchristian.  Mr.  Barnes' 
views  coincided  with  those  of  these  brethren,  and  they  in  the 
Presbytery  who  opposed  them,  determined,  if  they  could,  to 
prevent  the  settlement  of  Mr.  Barnes.  Tlie  case  was  carried 
up  by  complaint  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1831,  and  was 
disposed  of  by  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions, 
viz. : — 

**  1.  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly,  while  it  ap- 
preciates the  conscientious  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  Church, 
by  which  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is  believed  to  have 
been  actuated  in  its  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes ; 
and  while  it  judges  that  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  entitled 
*  The  Way  of  Salvation,'  contains  a  number  of  unguarded  and 
objectionable  passages  ;  yet  is  of  opinion,  that,  especially 
after  the  explanations  which  were  given  by  him  of  those 
passages,  the  Presbytery  ought  to  have  suffered  the  whole 
to  pass  without  further  notice. 

2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly,  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  ought  to  suspend  all  further  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

3.  Resolved,  That  it  will  be  expedient,  as  soon  as  the  reg- 
ular steps  can  be  taken,  to  divide  the  Presbytery  in  such 
way  as  will  be  best  calculated  to  promote  the  peace  of  the 
ministers  and  churches  belonging  to  the  Presbytery." — Min. 
Assemhly  1831,  page  180. 

Conformably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Assembly,  ap- 
plication was  made  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  at  its  ses- 
sions the  ensuing  October,  to  divide  the  Presbytery,  but  the 
Synod  rejected  the  application.  Of  the  refusal  of  the  Synod 
to  divide  the  Presbytery,  those  members  who  desired  the 
division  complained  to  the  next  General  Assembly.  Their 
complaint  was  sustained,  and  the  Presbytery  divided  agrcea- 


44 


THE    ALLEGED    GROUNDS    OF 


bly  to  their  wishes. — See  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1832, 
pacje  321. 

As  the  guardian  of  the  peace  of  tlie  churches,  how  could 
the  Assembly  forbear  to  divide  the  Presbytery  ?  And  was 
the  erection  of  the  new  one  on  the  principle  of  elective  af- 
finity, for  the  express  purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  the  un- 
hallowed strifes  which  had  long  existed  in  the  old  Presby- 
tery of  Phihidelphia,  and  which  the  Assembly  had  good 
reason  to  believe  would  be  continued,  were  it  not  divided,  a 
sufficient  ground  for  the  Assembly  of  183'7  to  dissolve  a  Pres- 
bytery erected  by  a  previous  Assembly?  Can  any  person 
qualified  by  knowledge  and  candor  to  judge  in  the  case,  give 
an  affirmative  answer  to  this  inquiry? 

The  attempted  justification  of  the  act  dissolving  the  3d 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  because  it  was  organized  on  the 
principle  of  elective  affinity,  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
act  of  their  own  party  in  1821.  In  that  year  a  union  was 
effected  between  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church.  The  Assem- 
bly, in  consummating  that  union,  recognized  and  carried  out 
the  principle  of  elective  affinity.  One  article  of  the  plan  of 
union  is  in  these  words : 

"The  different  Presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  shall  either  retain  their  separate  organization,  or 
shall  be  amalgamated  with  those  of  the  General  Assembly, 
at  their  own  choice.  In  the  former  case  (that  is,  by  elect- 
ive affinity),  they  shall  have  as  full  powers  and  privileges  as 
any  other  in  the  united  body."  One  of  the  Presbyteries  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  Church  availed  itself  of  this  per- 
mission. The  General  Assembly  therefore  allowed  two  Pres- 
byteries, one  previously  belonging  to  it,  and  one  received  from 
the  Associate  Church,  to  occupy  "the  same  ground  and  have 
jurisdiction  over  the  same  territory." 

It  requires  but  a  moderate  share  of  discernment  to  see  the 
real  ground  of  the  objection  of  the  exscinders  of  1837  to  a 
Presbytery   organized  on  the  principle  of  elective  affinity. 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  45 

When  the  adoption  of  the  principle  tended  to  increase  their 
power  and  inllaence,  they  had  no  objection  to  it : — when  it 
tended  to  diminish  them,  it  was  an  evil  not  to  be  tolerated. 

And  the  Assembly  did  more  than  dissolve  the  3d  Presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia.  Their  4th  and  5th  resolutions  respect- 
ing it  are  in  these  words,  viz. : 

4th.  "  The  Ministers,  Chmxhes  and  Licentiates,  in  the  Pres- 
bytery hereby  dissolved,  are  directed  to  apply  without  delay 
to  the  Presbyteries  to  which  they  naturally  belong,  for  ad- 
mission into  them.  And  upon  application  being  so  made  by 
any  duly  organized  Presbyterian  Church,  it  shall  be  received. 

5th,  These  resolutions  shall  be  in  force  from  and  after  the 
final  adjournment  of  the  present  sessions  of  the  General  As- 
sembly."— Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  18S1,  paye  413. 

These  resolutions  make  it  manifest  as  the  light,  that  after 
the  final  adjournment  of  the  Assembly,  the  Ministers, 
Churches  and  Licentiates  of  the  3d  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia, till  they  should  apply  for  admission  into  "  the  Presby- 
tery to  which  they  most  naturally  belong,"  and  be  actually 
received  by  them,  were  declared  to  be  out  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church. 

This  procedure  against  the  3d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia 
and  the  excision  of  the  four  Synods  without  trial  or  citation, 
in  respect  to  the~"reputation  of  the  authors  of  these  acts, 
were  passed  three  centuries  too  late.  The  darkness  of  the 
dark  ages  would  have  been  but  a  miserable  apology  for  them. 

The  Assembly  did  not  rest  their  attempted  vindication  of 
the  excision  of  the  four  Synods  solely  on  the  ground  of  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Union.  They  were 
doubtless  convinced,  if  they  could  assign  no  other  reason  for 
those  acts,  they  would  be  placed  before  an  enlightened  com- 
munity in  a  most  unenviable  position.  Anotlicr  ground  on 
which  they  attempted  to  justify  them,  was  doctrinal  error 
and  gross  departures  from  the  order  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  By  turning  to  pages  29-33  inclusive  of  this  history, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  Assembly  attempted  to  vindicate  their 


46  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

exscinding  acts,  by  alleging  the  alarming  prevalence  of  fun- 
damental errors  in  the  Church,  especiall3'  within  the  bounds 
of  the  disowned  Synods.  In  their  ''  Circular  Letter  to  all 
the  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ,"  they  say  of  these  errors, 
"  They  form  in  fact  another  Gospel ;  it  is  impossible  for  those 
who  faithfully  adhere  to  our  public  standards  to  walk  with 
those  who  adopt  such  opinions  with  either  comfort  or  con- 
fidence." 

The  principal  "  disorders  and  irregularities  "  of  which  the 
Assembly  complained  and.  against  which  they  warned  the 
churches,  are  these,  viz.,  "  Irregularities  in  the  formation  of 
Presbyteries,  hcensing  men  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  or- 
daining them  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,"  who  do  not  cordially 
adopt  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  "  and  preach 
and  publish  radical  errors ;  the  formation  of  creeds,  often 
incomplete,  false,  and.  contradictory  of  each  other,  and  of 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible  ;  the  needless  ordina- 
tion of  a  multitude  of  men  to  the  office  of  evangelist ;  the 
disuse  of  the  office  of  Ruhng  Elder;  the  unlimited  and  irre- 
sponsible power,  assumed  by  several  associations  of  men  under 
various  names,  to  exercise  authority  and  influence,  direct  and 
indirect,  over  Presbyteries,  and  a  progressive  system  of  Pres- 
byterial  representation  in  the  General  Assembly — until  the 
actual  representation  seldom  exhibits  the  true  state  of  the 
Church." — See  Minutes  Assembly  of  1837,  page  471. 

These  are  grave  charges  indeed.  If  well  founded,  they 
could  doubtless  have  been  established  by  testimony  before 
the  regularly  constituted  judicatories  of  the  church.  If 
they  could  not  be  proved,  those  who  wrongfully  charged 
their  brethren  with  embracing  the  errors  specified,  and  prac- 
tising the  alleged  irregularities,  ought  to  have  been  dealt 
with  as  slanderers.  These  are  charges,  too,  be  it  remem- 
bered, brought  against  Synods  and  the  churches  within  their 
bounds,  declared  to  be  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  on 
the  ground  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  "  the  Plan  of  Union." 
The  authors  of  the  exscinding  acts,  when  attempting  to  justify 


•  JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  47 

them  on  this  ground,  solemnly  affirm  that  they  passed  them 
**  without  impeaching  the  character  or  standing  of  the 
brethren  composing  these  Synods."  In  support  of  the 
resolution  for  exscinding  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
it  was  said  in  the  Assembly,  "  The  resolution — charges  fio 
offence,  it  proposes  no  trial,  it  threatens  no  sentence.  It 
purports  merely  to  declare  a  fact,  and  assigns  a  reason  for 
the  declaration.  It  has  neither  the  form  nor  the  operation 
of  a  judicial  process.  Should  the  resolution  be  adopted,  it 
will  not  affect  the  standing  of  the  members  of  this  Synod  as 
Christians,  as  ministers  or  pastors.  It  will  simply  alter  their 
relation  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  do  not  propose  to 
excommunicate  them  as  church  members,  or  depose  them  as 
ministers.  We  do  not  withdraw  our  confidence  from  them, 
or  intend  to  cast  any  imputation  upon  them." — Biblical 
Repertory,  July  1837,  page  454. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  lano;uao;e  more  kind  and  cour- 
teous  toward  those  whom  they  were  laboring  to  cast  out  of 
the  church  without  trial.  How  humihating,  shortly  after  it 
was  uttered,  to  hear  its  authors,  when  attempting  to  justify 
their  act  of  exscinding  them,  charge  them  with  errors  and 
irregukrities  so  gross  as  to  merit  exclusion  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  by  judicial  process  ! 

After  having  cast  them  out  of  the  church,  their  position 
was  an  exceedingly  difficult  one.  They  are  really  to  be  pitied 
no  less  than  blamed.  In  casting  them  out  without  trial,  they 
did  an  egregious  wrong,  and  they  must  either  repent  or  at- 
tempt to  justity  it.  Unhappily  they  chose  the  latter,  and 
must  abide  the  consequences. 

Before  a  refutation  is  attempted  of  the  charges  of  gross 
errors  and  irregularities  against  constitutional  Presbyterians, 
justice  to  them  requires  that  it  be  stated  and  borne  in  mind, 
that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  them  have  never  denied 
that  there  were  errors  in  doctrine  and  irregularities  in  prac- 
tice in  the  churches,  which  required  correction.  They  be- 
lieved there  were,  deplored  their  existence,  and  were  willing 


48  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

to  co-operate  in  the  employment  of  constitutional  and  scrip- 
tural means  for  their  removal.  They  then  resisted  and  have 
uniformly  borne  their  testimony  against  them.  The  evils 
complained  of  were  mainly  attributable  to  a  class  of  reckless 
evangelists  and  pastors,  who  admitted  them  to  their  pulpits, 
some  of  whom  doubtless  approved  and  adopted  their  doc- 
trines and  measures.  Those  who  were  opposed  to  them,  and 
wilhng  to  employ  means  authorized  by  the  Scriptures  for  the 
removal  of  error  both  in  doctrine  and  practice,  were  opposed 
to  the  substitution  of  violent  and  summary  measures  for  the 
discipline  of  the  Gospel.  And  at  the  time  the  four  Synods 
were  disowned,  the  evils  complained  of  had  been  arrested, 
and  far  less  was  to  be  apprehended  from  them  than 
there  had  been  six  or  eight  years  before.  This  is  admitted 
by  the  editors  of  the  Biblical  Repertory.  In  their  review  of 
the  "  Act  and  Testimony  "  in  1834,  after  having  commended 
one  Presbytery  in  which  they  say,  there  is  not  "  a  single  ad- 
herent of  the  Old  School,"  for  refusing  to  ordain  a  candidate 
w^ho  held  the  popular  errors  on  depravity  and  regeneration, 
they  say,  "  There  are  not  wanting  other  decisive  and  cheer- 
ing intimations  that  the  portentous  union  between  New 
Divinity  and  new  measures,  which  threatened  to  desolate  the 
church,  has,  at  least  for  the  present,  done  its  worst." 

Moreover,  the  zeal  of  the  leaders  in  the  ranks  of  the  self- 
constituted  reformers  was  all  employed  in  one  direction. 
Among  themselves  were  men  strongly  tinctured  with  Anti- 
nomian  errors — errors  highly  dishonorable  to  God,  and  cal- 
culated to  remove  from  the  minds  both  of  saints  and  sinners 
the  burden  of  obligation  to  yield  immediate  and  unceasing 
obedience  to  His  will.  But  the  exscinders  would  suffer  no 
testimony  to  be  borne  against  these  errors.  And  measures 
for  promoting  revivals  of  religion,  of  which  they  loudly  com- 
plained, had  been  used  by  leading  men  of  their  own  party 
for  years.  And  compared  with  evils  which  attended  revi- 
vals among  Presbyterians  in  the  West,  especially  in  Kentucky 
and  Temiessee  more  than  thirty  years  before,  for  the  removal 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  49 

of  which  no  disciphnary  nor  legishitive  measures  were  em- 
ployed, those  upon  which  their  zeal  was  expended  were  as 
the  twilight  to  the  darkness  which  brooded  over  Egypt  on 
that  fearful  night  when  her  first-born  were  slain. 

Justice  to  constitutional  Presbyterians  requires  that  an- 
other ground  of  their  opposition  to  the  course  pursued  to- 
ward the  disowned  Synods  should  be  stated.  It  was  not  de- 
nied even  by  the  exscinders  themselves  that  there  were 
among  them  sound  Presbyterians,  and  those  in  other  sections 
of  the  church,  who  opposed  their  exscinding  acts,  had  evi- 
dence which,  to  their  minds,  was  perfectly  satisfactory,  that 
there  were  hundreds  of  ministers  and  thousands  of  church- 
members  whose  soundness  in  the  faith  could  not  be  impeach- 
ed. The  act  of  excision  placed  these  unoffending  brethren, 
who  had  done  and  suffered  four-fold  more  than  any  of  the 
self-styled  reformers  had  done,  to  prevent  the  spread  of  error 
in  doctrine  and  practice  in  the  church,  in  precisely  the  same 
position  with  those  who  had  embraced  and  labored  to  pro- 
pagate them.  To  this  procedure  they  were  conscientiously 
and  irreconcilably  opposed.  True,  in  justification  of  this  ex- 
traordinary and  revolting  procedure,  it  was  said  ample  pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  reception  of  all  sound  Presbyterians 
into  the  church,  from  whicli  they  had  been  thrust  out.  This 
adds  insult  to  injury-.  Let  us  suppose  an  analogous  case. 
Rumors  reach  the  ears  of  Congiess  that  within  the  territory 
covered  by  the  four  disowned  Synods,  there  are  citizens  of 
treasonable  principles  and  practice.  Instead  of  ordering  a 
legal  investigation  of  these  rumors  to  be  made,  on  the  ground 
of  them,  though  wholly  irresponsible,  they  pass  a  resolution, 
declaring  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  suspected  districts  no 
longer  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  their  senators  and 
representatives  no  longer  entitled  to  seats  in  their  body.  Not 
doubting,  however,  that  there  are  many  unoffending  and 
law-abiding  citizens  in  the  exscinded  districts.  Congress  en- 
acts that  all  who  will  come  forward  and  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  Government,  shall  be  received  as  loyal  riti- 


50  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

zens.  It  would  be  insulting  to  any  man's  understanding  and 
sense  of  common  justice,  to  inquire  what  would  be  the  senti- 
ment of  the  nation,  and  of  the  civilized  world,  respecting  the 
legality  and  justice  of  such  a  procedure  ?  Such,  however, 
was  the  character  of  the  acts  of  the  Assemby  of  1837  of 
which  we  complain. 

But  we  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  attempted  justifi- 
cation by  our  exscinding  brethren  of  their  acts  of  excision  on 
the  alleged  ground  of  the  alarming  prevalence  in  the  church 
of  doctrinal  errors.  Here,  at  the  very  threshold,  the  re- 
markable fact  meets  us,  that  not  an  individual  minister  in 
connection  with  the  General  Assembly  had  been  convicted 
of  any  departure  from  "  The  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chisms." Charges  of  departures  in  doctrine  from  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  the  Word  of  God  had  been  made  against 
the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Beecher,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Lane  Seminary,  C  incinnati, 
Ohio.  Indeed,  this  charge  had  been  twice  brought  against 
Mr.  Barnes.  In  1830  he  received  a  call  from  the  1st  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  Philadelphia,  to  become  its  pastor.  A 
minority  of  the  Presbytery  opposed  his  settlement  on  the  al- 
leged ground  of  errors  in  doctrine  contained  in  a  sermon 
which  he  had  published,  entitled  "  The  Way  of  Salvation." 
The  majority,  however,  after  hearing  Mr.  Barnes's  explana- 
tions, were  satisfied  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  sermon 
which  ought  to  prevent  his  settlement,  and  so  decided.  Of 
this  the  minority  complained  to  the  Synod.  The  Synod  re- 
ferred the  case  back  to  the  Presbytery,  to  hear  and  decide 
upon  their  objections  to  Mr.  Barnes's  sermon.  When  the 
Presbytery  convened  the  minority  had  become  the  majority, 
and  the  case  was  referred  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 
This  reference  the  Assembly  disposed  of  by  passing  the 
resolutions  before  cited,  on  page  39  of  this  history. 

This  conclusion  was  deemed  so  auspicious  and  important 
to  the  peace  of  the  church,  that  **  the  Assembly  united  in 
special  prayer,  returning  thanks  to  God  for  the  harmonious 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  51 

result  to  which  they  liave  come ;  and  imploring  the  blessing 
of  God  on  their  decision." — See  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of 
1831,  ^m^es  ISO,  181. 

In  1835,  the  Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.  D.,  then  President 
of  Lafayette  College,  arraigned  Mr.  Barnes  before  his  Pres- 
bytery, on  charges  of  erroneous  doctrines,  contained  in  a  Avork 
which  he  had  published,  entitled  ''  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans."  These  charges  were  ten  in  number,  the  state- 
ment of  which,  in  this  place,  is  not  necessary.  After  a  pa- 
tient hearing  of  the  case,  the  Presbytery  decided  that  the 
charges  were  not  sustained.  From  this  decision.  Dr.  Junkin 
appealed  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  which  met  the  en- 
suing October,  in  York,  Penn.  The  Synod  sustained  the 
appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin,  and  "  suspended  "  Mr.  Barnes  from  the 
exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to  the  Gospel  ministry," 
till  he  should  retract  his  errors,  or  give  satisfactory  evidence 
of  repentance.  From  this  act  of  suspension  Mr.  Barnes  ap- 
pealed to  the  next  General  Assembly.  The  Assembly  met 
the  ensuing  May,  in  the  city  of  Pittsburg,  when  the  appeal 
of  Mr.  Barnes  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and 
thirty-four  members,  ninety-six  only  voting  against  it.  The 
sentence  of  suspension  from  the  functions  proper  to  the  Gos- 
pel ministry  was  alio  reversed,  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and 
forty-five  members  against  seventy-eight. 

A  resolution  was  then  introduced  censuring  some  of  the 
languaoje  in  Mr.  Barnes's  Notes  on  the  Romans,  as  at  variance 
with  the  standards  of  the  church,  and  admonishing  him  to 
revise  the  work,  modify  its  statements,  and  "  be  more  careful, 
in  time  to  come,  to  study  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church," 
but  the  motion  was  lost. 

In  1835  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  L.  Wilson,  of  Cincinnati,  arraign- 
ed the  Rev.  Dr.  Beecher,  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary,  be- 
fore the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  on  a  charge  of  heresy  and 
slander,  by  charging  the  whole  Church  of  God  with  agreeing 
with  him  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  sinner's  inability  to 
do  the  will  of  God.  The  charges  brought  against  Dr.  Beecher 


52  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

were  substantially  the  same  with  those  for  which  Mr.  Barnes 
was  tried  and  suspended  by  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.  Tlie 
Presbytery,  after  a  protracted  and  patient  hearing  of  the  case, 
decided  that  the  charges  against  him  had  not  been  sustained. 
From  this  decision  Dr.  V/ilson  appealed  to  the  Synod,  but 
his  appeal  was  not  sustained.  He  then  appealed  from  the 
decision  of  the  Synod  to  the  General  Assembly,  but  when 
that  body  met  the  ensuing  May,  in  the  city  of  Pittsburg,  he 
requested  leave  to  withdraw  his  appeal,  and  his  request  was 
granted. 

These  are  the  only  individuals  who  have  been  tried  during 
the  unhappy  controversies  which  for  years  had  agitated  the 
Presbyterian  Chnrch  for  errors  alleged  to  have  been  em- 
braced and  propagated  by  its  members.  Both  of  them  were 
honorably  acquitted.  Neither  of  them  belonged  to  the  ex- 
scinded Synods.  Not  a  member  of  those  bodies  had  been 
tried  or  arraigned  for  heresy.  But  if  the  errors,  affirmed  to 
have  been  extensively  embraced  and  disseminated  by  their 
members,  had  actually  existed  among  them,  they  could  have 
been  arraigned,  tried  and  condemned,  unless  those  bodies 
were  so  corrupt  as  to  prevent  the  regular  exercise  of  disci- 
pline ;  and  in  that  case  the  General  Assembly  could  have 
taken  the  work  of  reform  into  its  own  hand  by  the  method 
prescribed  in  Section  5th,  Chapter  12th,  in  our  Form  of 
Government.  The  attempted  justification  of  the  acts,  cutting 
oflf  the  four  Synods  on  the  ground  of  doctrinal  errors,  is  an 
utter  failure.  It  was  more  than  a  mere  failure.  It  was  nothing 
less  than  an  effort  to  justify  the  casting  out  of  the  church 
without  trial,  or  a  responsible  accuser,  brethren  in  good  stand- 
ino"  in  their  respective  Presbyteries  and  Synods  on  the  ground 
of  mere  rumor;  nay,  of  casting  out  many  who,  according  to 
their  own  admission,  were  sound  in  the  faith.  Much  more 
creditable  would  it  have  been  to  the  authors  of  these  acts 
frankly  to  have  admitted  that  they  were  unconstitutional,  ar- 
bitrary, and  unrighteous,  and  promptly  to  have  rescinded 
them. 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  53 

And  tliey  not  only  cast  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Cliurcli  so 
many  of  her  ministers  and  her  members,  all  of  whom  were  in 
good  standing  in  their  respective  presbyteries  and  churches, 
but  did  it  in  the  face  of  repeated  public  and  solemn  declara- 
tions on  the  part  of  those  who  represented  them  in  the  judi- 
catories and  other  convocations  of  the  Church,  of  their  rejec- 
tion and  deep  abhorrence  of  the  errors  laid  to  their  charge. 
When  the  list  of  errors,  contained  in  the  Memorial  of  the 
Convention,  which  commenced  its  sessions  ten  days  before, 
was  introduced  into  the  Assembly,  an  efifort  was  made  by 
one  of  the  minority  to  add  to  it  others  of  Antinomian  tendeli- 
cy.  After  some  discussion,  it  was  agreed  to  make  the  con- 
sideration of  these  errors  the  order  of  the  day  for  the  ensu- 
ing morning.  Instead  of  being*  considered  then,  however,  it 
was  not  again  presented  for  discussion  in  the  Assembly  till 
the  Vth  of  the  ensuing  month,  when,  after  a  few  verbal  al- 
terations, it  was  adopted.  The  reasons  for  this  delay,  and 
for  cutting  off  all  further  amendment  and  discussion  of  th€ 
report,  will  be  best  understood  by  the  protest  of  the  minori- 
ty against  its  adoption,  which  is  as  follows,  viz.  : — 

'^  PROTEST. 

"  The  undersigned  respectfully  present  their  protest  against 
the  act  of  the  Genei-al  Assembly,  adopting  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Bills  and  Overtures,  on  so  much  of  the  memo- 
rial of  the  convention  as  relates  to  erroneous  doctrines,  and 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

"  We  protest,  1 .  Because  of  tlie  course  pursued  by  the  md" 
jority  in  relation  to  this  report.  Early  in  the  sessions  of  the 
Assembly  it  was  announced,  that  all  the  great  questions 
which  should  claim  their  attention,  and  the  action  on  which 
would  give  character  to  this  Assembly,  and  affect  the  very 
integrity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  were  entwined  around 
and  involved  in  the  memorial  of  the  convention.  That  me- 
morial presented,  as  the  evil  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of 
their  solemn  testimony,  and  threatened  the  very  existence  of 
3 


54  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

the  church,  the  prevalence  of  error.  *  It  is  against  errors  say 
the  memorialists,  *  that  we  emphatically  bear  our  testimony — 
error,  not  as  it  may  be  freely  and  openly  held  by  others,  in 
this  age  and  land  of  absolute  religious  freedom,  but  error  held 
and  taught  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  preached  and  written 
by  persons  who  profess  to  receive  and  adopt  our  scriptural 
standards — promoted  by  societies  widely  operating  through 
our  churches — reduced  into  form  and  openly  embraced  by  al- 
most entire  Presbyteries  and  Synods — favored  by  repeated 
acts  of  successive  General  Assemblies,  and  at  last  virtually 
sanctioned  to  an  alarming  extent  by  the  numerous  Assembly 
of  1836.'     Of  this  they  said  they  had  '  conclusive  proof.' 

"  On  Monday,  the  22d  ultimo,  the  fourth  day  of  the  sessions 
of  the  Assembly,  the  committee  to  whom  the  memorial  was 
referred,  presented  their  report  in  relation  to  these  errors, 
and  invited  the  attention  of  the  Assembly  to  this  subject,  as 
one  of  the  very  first  importance,  detailing  with  one  or  two 
verbal  alterations  merely,  the  list  of  errors  condemned  by  the 
memoriahsts,  and  alleged  to  be  rife  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  was  moved  to  amend  this  list  by  introducing 
into  it  four  other  en^ors,  alleged  to  be  held  and  taught,  and 
productive  of  great  mischief  in  the  church.  At  the  same 
time,  request  was  made  for  one  day's  delay,  that  so  grave  and 
important  a  subject  might  receive  the  calm  and  sober  atten- 
tion it  merited.  On  all  hands,  discussion  was  allowed  to  be 
desirable  and  necessary;  and  the  Assembly  agreed  to  make 
the  subject  the  order  of  the  day  for  the  next  day.  When  the 
next  day  anived,  however,  the  Assembly  refused  to  take  up 
the  subject,  and  notwithstanding  frequent  attempts  were 
made  by  the  minority  to  get  at  the  discussion,  and  the  radi- 
cal importance  of  the  subject  had  been  alleged,  the  Assembly 
uniformly  refused  to  take  it  up,  till  near  the  close  of  the  ses- 
siont,  when  all  discussion  and  amendment  were  instantly  pre- 
vented by  the  call  for  the  previous  question. 

**  2.  We  protest,  because  of  the  manner  in  ivhkh  the  vote  was 
arrived  at.     The  amendment  offered  proposed  the  condemna- 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  55 

tion  of  the  four  following  errors,  of  the  existence  of  which  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  more  decisive  proof,  in  our  view, 
was  given  by  several  speakers,  tlian  of  any  reported  by  the 
convention,  viz. :  1.  '  That  man  has  no  ability  of  any  kind 
to  obey  GocVs  command  or  do  his  duty.  2.  That  ability  is 
not  necessary  to  constitute  obligation.  3.  That  God  may  just- 
ly command  what  man  has  no  ability  to  perform,  and  justly 
condemn  him  for  the  non-performance,  4.  That  all  the  2>ow- 
ers  of  man  to  perform  the  duty  required  of  him,  have  been 
destroyed  by  the  fall'  The  admission  of  this  amendment 
was  opposed. 

"  A  motion  was  made  for  the  postponement  of  the  amend- 
ment and  doctrinal  discussion  till  the  next  day,  and  argued 
till  the  previous  question  was  demanded,  which,  the  Modera- 
tor decided,  would  present  the  question  of  postponement  as 
*  the  main  question  ;'  and  in  that  form  the  previous  question 
was  put  and  carried.     But  instead  of  taking  up  the  subject 
then  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  the  next  day,  the  ma- 
jority even  afterwards  refused  to  do  so,  until  the  rule  for  the 
previous  question  had  been  so  altered,  and  the  Moderator's 
decision  on  it  so  had,  that  the  use  of  the  previous  question 
would  cut  off  the  amendment,  and  bring  up  the  original  list 
of  errors  as  the  main  question.     At  the  close  of  the  session, 
when  it  was  well  known  this  would  be  the  effect  of  the  pre- 
vious question,  the  report  of  the  committee  was  taken  up,  and 
the  call  for  the  previous  question  made  so  immediately  as  to 
prevent  all  discussion  on  the  amendment  thereafter,  as  well 
as  on  the  whole  list  of  doctrinal  errors. 

"  3.  We  protest,  because  of  the  effect  produced  by  the  pros- 
pect  or  probability  of  obtaining  a  unanimous  condemnation  of 
the  errors.  During  the  short  discussion  which  took  place  on 
the  amendment,  it  became  obvious,  that  there  would  be  a 
general  if  not  unanimous  testimony  of  the  Assembly  against 
the  errors  proposed  to  be  condemned.  Such  a  vote  would 
have  greatly  weakened  if  not  entirely  destroyed  the  allega- 
tions of  the  convention,  who  affirmed  that  they  had  *  conclu- 


56  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

sive  proof  that  these  errors  *are  widely  disseminated  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church.'  We  hoped  it  would  have  arrest- 
ed all  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Assembly,  which  we  feel 
to  have  been  so  disastrous  to  the  interests  of  our  beloved 
church.  At  all  events,  its  moral  effect,  as  a  testimony 
against  error,  would  have  been  so  great,  that  had  it  been  the 
main  and  exclusive  design  of  the  majority  to  condemn  error, 
we  think  it  strange  they  did  not  see  and  appreciate  it.  We 
think  it  strange,  too,  that  instead  of  endeavoring  to  obtain  a 
unanimous  vote  in  the  condemnation  of  error,  and  promote 
peace  and  harmony,  which  might  have  prevented  much  of 
what  we  beheve  will  be  productive  of  great  and  lasting  injury 
to  the  church,  the  doctrinal  errors  were  studiously  and  with 
determination-  kept  back  from  the  consideration  of  the  As- 
sembly till  nearly  all  those  measures  were  adopted,  which 
could  only  be  alleged  to  be  necessary,  on  supposition  of  the 
fact,  that  there  could  be  no  unanimity  or  agreement  in  the 
condemnation  of  error. 

**  4.  We  protest,  because  of  the  embarrassing  condition  in 
which  members  of  the  minority  were  placed,  by  the  manner  in 
tvhith  the  majority  determined,  finally,  to  act  on  the  report. 
The  report  presented  the  list  of  errors,  and  proposed  that  the 
Assembly  testify  against  them,  not  as  errors,  in  thesi,  but  as 
errors  declared  by  the  convention  to  be  rife  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  This,  some  of  the  members  did  not  believe. 
At  all  events,  no  proof  whatever  was  exhibited  or  offered 
that  such  is  the  fact.  Others  felt  that  some  of  the  errors 
condemned  are  erroneous  inferences,  which  have  been  drawn 
and  falsely  charged  by  those  who  do  not  imderstand  the  real 
sentiments  of  brethren,  who  prefer,  in  explaining  the  great 
doctrines  of  our  confession  and  of  the  Word  of  God,  to  speak 
in  the  language  of  common  sense,  rather  than  to  employ  cer- 
tain theological  technics  or  terms  of  scholastic  divinity,  not 
found  either  in  the  Bible  or  in  our  standards,  and  which,  it 
is  believed,  in  many  instances  make  dangerous  practical  im- 
pressions, and  contrary  both  to  the  truth  and  to  the  design 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  57 

of  those  that  use  them.  To  have  refused,  on  the  one  hand, 
for  these  and  such  hke  reasons,  to  condemn  these  errors, 
would  necessarily,  in  the  present  agitated  state  of  the  public 
mind,  excite  suspicions  and  doubts  as  to  their  soundness  in 
the  faith,  who  did  so.  Yea,  even  a  non  liquet  vote,  or  de- 
clining to  vote  altogether,  would  have  the  same  effect.  On 
the  other  hand,  to  have  condemned  these  errors,  without 
some  opportunity  afforded  in  discussion  to  state  their  real 
views,  and  to  disavow  their  belief  of  the  erroneous  inferences 
drawn  from  their  mode  of  explaining  the  doctrine  of  the  stand- 
ards in  the  language  of  common  sense,  in  preference  to  that 
of  scholastic  theology,  would  have  subjected  them  to  the 
charge  of  insincerity  and  hypocrisy,  of  late  so  industriously 
circulated  against  many  estimable  men  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Christian  candor,  the  spirit  of  brotherly  love,  and 
the  obligation  to  do  to  others  as  we  would  have  them  to  do 
to  us,  we  think,  should  have  rendered  the  majority  wilhng  to 
afford  their  brethren  full  opportunity  to  exhibit  their  real 
views,  to  correct  any  misrepresentations,  to  disavow  any  false 
inferences  attributed  to  them  as  their  opinions,  and  to  unite 
with  them  in  the  condemnation  of  pernicious  error. 

"  5.  We  protest  also,  because  of  the  want  of  discrimination, 
as  we  think,  in  the  statement  of  the  errors ;  some  of  which 
are  propositions  wholly  of  a  metaphysical  character,  and  on 
points  by  no  means  clearly  and  positively  settled,  either  in 
our  standards  or  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  and  calculated 
exceedingly  to  perplex  and  bewilder  the  great  mass  of  or- 
dinary readers,  in  finding  them  classed  with  errors  essen- 
tially at  variance  with  both. 

"  6.  We  protest  further,  because  of  the  imperfect  character, 
as  we  think,  of  the  testimony  given  against  error,  in  the  report 
and  resolutions  adoj^ted.  We  think  that  the  dangerous  er- 
rors brought  into  view  by  the  amendment,  should  have  been 
condemned  ;  and  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to  affirm  a  proposi- 
tion to  be  erroneous  without  asserting  the  contrary  truth. 


58  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

Such  a  testimony  in  full,  we  were  prepared  to  give,  had  we 
been  allowed  an  opportunity. 

*'  1.  We  protest  yet  further,  because  the  language  of  several 
of  the  statements,  we  think,  is  so  ambiguous  as  to  contain 
different  propositions  according  to  the  different  legitimate 
signification  of  the  terms  employed  in  the  statement,  and 
therefore  requiring  some  explanation,  as  in  specification  first, 
where  it  is  said,  God  was  not  able  to  prevent  the  existence  of 
sin.  Here,  if  the  words  *  not  able'  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  a  want 
of  a  mere  literal  power,  we  have  one  proposition ;  but  if  under- 
stood to  signify  inconslsltncy  with  the  perfections  of  the  di- 
vine nature  generally,  we  have  another  totally  different ;  and 
so  of  can  in  the  thirteenth  and  cannot  in  the  fourteenth  spe- 
cifications. The  same  is  also  true  in  regard  to  the  term 
ability  in  the  latter  clause  of  specification  ninth.  If  by 
abilitv  be  meant  endowments,  such  as  constitute  the  natural 
capabilities  of  a  moral  and  responsible  agent,  we  have  one 
proposition  ;  but  if  ability  be  understood  to  signify  a  disposi- 
tion of  mind  to  will,  and  to  do  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  we 
have  one  wholly  diverse.  To  the  list  of  ambiguities  we  may 
add  the  term  regeneration,  in  the  latter  clause  of  specifica- 
tion twelfth.  If,  in  that  place,  regeneration  be  understood 
to  comprehend  all  the  vicissitudes  of  mind  which  man  expe- 
riences in  the  chano-e  from  a  careless  sinner  to  a  real  Chris- 

O 

tian,  we  shall  have  a  proposition  wholly  diverse  from  that 
which  we  would  have,  if  we  understood  the  term  to  mean 
merely  the  transformation  of  a  convicted  and  anxious  sinner 
into  a  true  and  spiritual  Christian,  or  the  translation  from  a 
state  of  death  in  trespasses  and  sins  to  a  state  of  life  ;  so  that 
several  of  these  statements  may  be  true  or  false,  error  or  or- 
thodoxy, just  as  the  terms  that  express  them  may  be  differ- 
ently explained.  We  feel  bound  to  protest  against  any  doc- 
trinal statements  coming  from  this  body,  of  so  ambiguous 
import,  and  so  adapted,  as,  w^e  think,  without  explanation, 
to  perplex  and  confound,  and  not  to  instruct  and  edify  the 
churches. 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  59 

**  8.  Wc  protest,  finally,  because,  in  view  of  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  we  feel  tliat  while  we  were  prevented 
from  uniting  in  the  final  vote  with  the  majority  in  their  tes- 
timony against  error,  for  the  reasons  above  stated,  we  owe 
it  to  ourselves,  to  our  brethren,  to  the  church,  and  to  the 
world,  to  declare  and  protest,  that  it  is  not  because  we  do, 
directly  or  indirectly,  hold  or  countenance  the  eiTors  stated. 
We  are  willing  to  be;ir  our  testimony  in  full  against  them, 
and  now  do  so,  when,  without  misapprehension  and  liability  to 
have  our  vote  misconstrued,  we  avow  our  real  sentiments, 
and  contrast  them  with  the  errors  condemned,  styling  them, 
as  we  believe,  the  true  doctrine,  in  opposition  to  the  errone- 
ous doctrine  condemned,  as  follows,  viz. : 

**  First  Error.  *  That  God  would  have  prevented  the  ex- 
istence of  sin  in  our  world,  but  was  not  able,  without  destroying 
the  moral  agency  of  man ;  or,  that  for  aught  that  appears  in 
the  Bible  to  the  contrary,  sin  is  incidental  to  any  wise  moral 
system.' 

*'  True  Doctrine.  God  permitted  the  introduction  of  sin, 
not  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent  it,  consistently  with 
the  moral  freedom  of  his  creatures,  but  for  wise  and  benevo- 
lent reasons,  which  he  has  not  revealed, 

*'  Second  Error.  *  That  election  to  eternal  life  is  founded 
on  a  foresigcht  of  faith  and  obedience,' 

"True  Doctrine.  Election  to  eternal  life  is  not  founded 
on  a  foresight  of  fidth  and  obedience,  but  is  a  sovereign  act 
of  God's  mercy,  whereby,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  he  h-is  chosen  some  to  salvation  ;  *yet  so  as  there- 
by neither  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures, 
nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken 
away,  but  rather  estabhshed  ;'  nor  does  this  gracious  pur- 
pose ever  take  effect  independently  of  faith  and  a  holy  life. 

*'  Tkird  Error.  *  That  we  have  no  more  to  do  with  the 
first  sin  of  Adam,  than  with  the  sins  of  any  other  parent.' 

"  True  Docti;ink.  By  a  divine  constitution,  Adam  was  so 
the  head  and   representative  of  the  race,  that,  ns  a  coiise- 


60  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

quence  of  his  transgression,  all  manMnd  become  morally  cor- 
rupt, and  liable  to  death,  temporal  and  eternal. 

"  Fourth  Error.  '  That  infants  come  into  the  world  as 
free  from  moral  defilement  as  was  Adam  when  he  was 
created.' 

*'  True  Doctrine.  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
endowed  with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness. 
Infants  come  into  the  world  not  only  destitute  of  these,  but 
with  a  natui  e  inclined  to  evil,  and  only  evil. 

<<  Fifth  Error.  *  That  infants  sustain  the  same  relation 
to  the  moral  government  of  God,  in  this  world,  as  brute  ani- 
mals, and  that  their  sufFeiings  and  death  are  to  be  account- 
ed for  on  the  same  principles  as  those  of  brutes,  and  not  by 
any  means  to  be  considered  as  penal.' 

"  True  Doctrine.  Brute  animals  sustain  no  such  relation 
to  the  moral  government  of  God  as  does  the  human  family. 
Infants  are  a  part  of  the  human  family  ;  and  their  sujfferings 
and  death  aie  to  be  accounted  for,  on  the  ground  of  their 
being  involved  in  the  general  moral  ruin  of  the  race  induced 
by  the  apostacy. 

"  Sixth  Error.  *  That  there  is  no  other  original  sin  than 
the  fact,  that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam,  though  by  nature 
innocent,  will  always  begin  to  sin  when  they  begin  to  exer- 
cise moral  agency ;  that  original  sin  does  not  include  a  sinful 
bias  of  the  human  mind,  and  a  just  exposure  to  penal  suffer- 
ing ;  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  Scripture,  that  infants, 
in  order  to  salvation,  do  need  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"  True  Doctrine.  Original  sin  is  a  natural  bias  to  evil, 
resulting  from  the  first  apostacy,  leading  invariably  and  cer- 
tainly to  actual  transgression.  And  all  infants,  as  well  as 
adults,  in  order  to  be  saved,  need  redemption  by  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  Seventh  Error.    *  That  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  wheth- 
er of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  or  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  61 

has  no  foundation  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  both  unjust 
and  absurd.' 

''  True  Doctrine.  The  sin  of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his 
posterity  in  the  sense  of  a  hteral  transfer  of  personal  quah- 
ties,  acts,  and  demerit ;  but  by  reason  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  in 
his  pecuhar  relation,  the  race  are  treated  as  if  they  had  sin- 
ned. Nor  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  his  peo- 
ple in  the  sense  of  a  literal  transfer  of  personal  qualities,  acts, 
and  merit ;  but  by  reason  of  his  righteousness,  in  his  peculiar 
relation,  they  are  treated  as  if  they  were  righteous. 

"  Eighth  Error.  *  That  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ 
were  not  truly  vicarious  and  penal,  but  symbolical,  govern- 
mental, and  instructive  only.' 

*'  True  Doctrine.  The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  were 
not  symbolical,  governmental,  and  instructive  only,  but  were 
truly  vicarious,  i.  e.  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  due  to 
transorressors.  And  while  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  hteral 
penalty  of  the  law,  involving  remorse  of  conscience  and  the 
pains  of  hell,  he  did  offer  a  sacrifice  which  infinite  wisdom 
saw  to  be  a  full  equivalent.  And  by  virtue  of  this  atone- 
ment, overtures  of  mercy  are  sincerely  made  to  the  race,  and 
salvation  secured  to  all  who  believe. 

"  Ni>  th  Error.  '  That  the  impenitent  sinner  is  by  nature, 
and  independently  of  the  renewing  influence  or  almighty  en- 
ergy of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  full  possession  of  all  the  ability  ne- 
cessary to  a  full  compliance  with  all  the  commands  of  God.' 

'^  True  Doctrine.  While  sinners  have  all  the  faculties 
necessary  to  a  perfect  moral  agency  and  a  just  accountability, 
such  is  their  love  of  sin  and  opposition  to  God  and  his  law, 
that,  independently  of  the  renewing  influence  or  almighty 
energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  never  will  comply  with  the 
commands  of  God. 

"  Tenth  Error.  *  That  Christ  does  not  intercede  for  the 
elect  until  after  their  refjeneration  ' 

"  True  Doctrine.    The  intercession  of  Christ  for  the  elect 
is  previous  as  well  as   subsequent  to  their  regeneration,  as 
3# 


62  THE    ALLEGED    GROUNDS    OP' 

appears  from  the  following  Scripture,  viz.,  *[  pray  not  for 
the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  giv^en  me,  for  they 
are  thine.  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also 
which  shall  believe  on  me  through  thy  word.' 

**  Eleventh  Error.  *  That  saving  faith  is  not  an  effect  of 
the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  a  mere  rational  belief 
of  the  truth  or  assent  to  the  word  of  God.' 

"  True  Doctrine.  Saving  faith  is  an  intelligent  and  cordial 
assent  to  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  his  Son,  implying 
reliance  on  Christ  alone  for  pardon  and  eternal  life ;  and  in  all 
cases  it  is  an  effect  of  the  special  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"  Twelfth  Error.  *  That  regeneration  is  the  act  of  the 
sinner  himself,  and  that  it  consists  in  change  of  his  govern- 
ing purpose,  which  he  himself  must  produce,  and  which  is 
the  result,  not  of  any  direct  influence  of  the  cloly  Spirit  on 
the  heart,  but  chiefly  of  a  persuasive  exhibition  of  the  truth, 
analogous  to  the  influence  which  one  man  exerts  over  the 
mind  of  another ;  or  that  regeneration  is  not  an  instantaneous 
act,  but  a  progressive  work.' 

"  True  Doctrine.  Regeneration  is  a  radical  change  of 
heart,  produced  by  the  special  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
*  determining  the  sinner  to  that  which  is  good,'  and  is  in  all 
cases  instantaneous. 

"  Thirteenth  Error.  *  That  God  has  done  all  thatAe  can 
do  for  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  that  man  himself  must 
do  the  rest.' 

"True  Doctrine.  While  repentance  for  sin  and  faith  in 
Christ  are  indispensable  to  salvation,  all  who  are  saved  are 
indebted  from  first  to  last  to  the  grace  and  Spirit  of  God. 
And  the  reason  that  God  does  not  save  all,  is  not  that  he 
wants  the  poiver  to  do  it,  but  that  in  his  wisdom  he  does  not 
see  fit  to  exert  that  power  further  than  he  actually  does. 

**  Fourteenth  Error.  *  That  God  cannot  exert  such  in- 
fluence on  the  minds  of  men,  as  shall  make  it  certain  that 
they  will  choose  and  act  in  a  particular  manner,  without  im- 
pairing their  moral  agency.' 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  63 

"  True  Doctrine.  While  the  liberty  of  the  will  is  not  im- 
paired, nor  the  established  connexion  betwixt  means  and  end 
broken  by  any  action  of  God  on  the  mind,  he  can  influence 
it  according  to  his  pleasure,  and  does  effectually  determine 
it  to  good  in  all  cases  of  true  conversion. 

**  Fifteenth  Error.  *  That  the  rigliteousness  of  Christ  is 
not  the  sole  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God ; 
and  that  in  no  sense  does  the  righteousness  of  Christ  become 
ours.' 

"  True  Doctrine.  All  believers  are  justified,  not  on  the 
ground  of  personal  merit,  but  solely  on  the  ground  of  the 
obedience  and  death,  or,  in  other  words,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  And  while  that  righteousness  does  not  become  theirs, 
in  the  sense  of  a  literal  transfer  of  personal  qualities  and 
merit ;  yet,  from  respect  to  it,  God  can  and  does  treat  them 
as  if  they  were  righteous." 

"  Sixteenth  Error.  *  That  the  reason  why  some  differ 
from  others  in  regard  to  their  reception  of  the  Gospel  is,  that 
they  make  themselves  to  differ.' 

"True  Doctrine.  While  all  such  as  reject  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  do  it,  not  b}^  coercion  but  freely — and  all  who  em- 
brace it  do  it,  not  by  coercion  but  freely — the  reason  why 
some  differ  f i  om  others  is,  that  God  has  made  them  to  differ. 

*'  Fhiladel/jhia,Juue  8th,  183V. 

"  George  Duffield,  E.  W.  Gilbert,  Thomas  Brown,  Bliss 
Burnap,  N.  S.  S.  Beman,  E.  Cheever,  E.  Seymour, 
George  Painter,  F.  W.  Graves,  Obadiah  Woodruff, 
N.  C.  Clark,  Robert  Stuart,  Nahum  Gould,  Absa- 
lom Peters,  Alexander  Campbelj." 

— Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  pages  4S1-486. 

On  the  17th  of  August  next  ensuing  the  meeting  of  the 
Assembly,  a  convention  of  ministers  and  laymen,  commis- 
sioned by  their  respective  Presbyteries,  met  in  Auburn,  New 
York,  to  deliberate  upon  the  unhappy  position  in  which  the 
church  had  been  placed  by  the  exscinding  and  kindred  acts  of 
the  Assembly,  and  recommend  such  u  course  of  action  to  the 


64  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

ministers  and  churches,  who  beheve  those  acts  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional, unrighteous,  and  revolutionary,  as  they  in  their 
wisdom  should  deem  best  calculated  to  promote  their  peace 
and  prosperity,  and  the  glory  of  God.  In  that  Convention 
nine  Synods  and  thirty-three  Presbyteries  were  represented 
by  ninety-eight  clergymen,  and  fifty- eight  laymen,  duly  com- 
missioned, and  twenty-four  clergymen,  not  commissioned  by 
their  Presbyteries,  who  were  invited  to  sit  as  corresponding 
members,  making  a  total  of  one  hundred  and  eighty.  These 
men  certainly  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  thnn  fair 
representatives  of  the  prevailing  doctrinal  sentiments  of  the 
Presbyteries  and  Churches  with  which  they  were  connected. 
Whether  they  were  so  heretical  as  to  deserve  exclusion  from 
the  church  by  judicial  process,  the  reader  may  judge  by 
reading  the  second  and  third  resolutions  which  they  passed 
upon  doctrine,  without  a  dissenting  voice.  They  are  these, 
viz. : — 

*'  2.  Resolved,  That  as  the  rehgious  sentiments  of  the 
Synods  and  Presbyteries  whom  we  represent,  we  cordially 
embrace  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
'  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,'  as  understood  by  the  church  ever  since  the 
Adopting  Act  of  1729,  viz.  :  'And  in  case  any  minister  of 
the  Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any 
scruple  with  respect  to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  confes- 
sion, he  shall,  in  time  of  making  said  declaration,  declare  his 
scruples  to  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  ;  who  shall,  notwith- 
standing, admit  him  to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within 
om'  bounds,  and  to  ministerial  communion,  if  the  Synod  or 
Presbytery  shall  judge  his  scruples  not  essential  or  necessary 
in  Doctrine,  Worship,  or  Government. 

''3.  Resohed,  That  in  accordance  with  the  above  declara- 
tion, and  also  to  meet  the  charges  contained  in  the  before- 
mentioned  circular  ['  The  Circular  Letter  to  all  the  Churches 
of  Jesus  Christ'],  and  other  published  documents  of  the  late 
General  Assejpbly,  this  convention  cordially  disapprove  and 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  65 

condemn  the  list  of  errors  condemned  by  the  late  General 
Assembly,  and  adopt,  as  the  expression  of  tlieir  own  senti- 
ments, and  as  they  believe  the  prevalent  sentiments  of  the 
churches  of  these  Synods  on  the  points  in  question,  the  list 
of  *  true  doctrines'  adopted  by  the  minority  of  the  said  As- 
sembly in  their  'Protest'  on  this  subject." 

These  repeated  disavowals  of  the  list  of  errors,  condemned 
by  the  Assembly,  the  repeated  affirmation  of  the  true  doc- 
trine, presented  in  the  protest  of  the  minority,  and  adherence 
to  **The  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  constitute  an  amount 
of  testimony  in  favor  of  the  doctrinal  purity  of  Constitutional 
Presbyterians,  which  can  be  resisted  only  by  an  implied  or 
avowed  affirmation  that  their  solemn  declarations  and  vows 
are  unworthy  of  credit.  Are  the  excinders,  who  have  rent 
the  church  asunder,  prepared  to  say  that  the  professions  of 
the  men  whom  they  charge  with  heresy,  are  hypocritical,  and 
that  by  their  ordination  vows,  they  made  themselves  guilty 
of  perjury  ?  We  are  confident  many  who  adhere  to  that 
branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  which,  in  1837,  trampled 
upon  the  Constitution,  abandoned  the  old,  time-honored 
platform  of  Presbyteriarism  and  placed  themselves  on  an 
entirely  "  neAv  basis,"  would  on  no  account  do  this.  For 
reasons,  which  they  doubtless  consider  sufficient,  but  the 
validity  of  which,  if  they  be  vahd,  we  have  not  to  this  day 
been  able  to  discern,  they  still  adhere  to  that  body.  In  this 
matter,  we  are  willing  to  leave  them  to  their  own  sense  of 
duty.  We  have  a  right,  however,  according  to  the  teachings 
of  the  "Biblical  Repertory,"  (an  authority  which  they  re- 
spect,) to  place  the  acts  of  the  body  with  which  they  are 
connected  in  their  true  light.  In  the  number  for  July,  1 837, 
we  find  the  following  language  :—"  The  only  fair  criterion 
by  which  to  judge  of  any  public  body,  is  their  acts  and  their 
official  documents.  Individuals  must  answer  for  themselves." 
In  availing  ourselves  of  this  universally  conceded  right,  to 
speak  of  their  exscinding  acts,  it  gives  us  no  pleasure,  but  un- 


6G  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

feigned  and  deep  regret  to  be  compelled  to  say  iliey  thrust 
out  of  the  church  so  large  a  number  of  ministers  and  com- 
municants, not  one  of  whom  had  been  convicted  of  heresy  or 
error,  or  of  any  disciplinable  offence,  and  against  their  solemn 
disavowal  of  the  heresies  laid  to  their  charge  and  declarations 
of  adherence  to  the  Confession  of  Faith.  These  acts  they 
first  attempted  to  justify  on  the  ground  of  the  alleged  uncon- 
stitutionality of  the  Plan  of  Union,  but  as  if  conscious  of  the 
invalidity  of  the  plea,  they  urge  that  of  i'umored.  heresies 
and  departures  from  Presbyterian  order  in  the  bounds  of  the 
disowned  Synods,  and  other  sections  of  the  Church.  By  the 
deep  and  unwavering  convictions  of  our  minds,  we  are  con- 
strained to  pronounce  these  acts  unfounded,  arbitrary,  and 
oppressive.  They  indeed  said  they  meant  not  to  crimhiate 
those  whom  they  disowned  and  cast  out,  ror  to  affect  their 
standing  as  christians  and  ministers,  or  pastors ;  but  directly 
after,  in  justification  of  their  acts  of  excision,  charge  them 
with  heresies  and  disorders  so  gross  as  to  render  them  de- 
serving of  exclusion  from  the  church  by  judicial  process.  If 
these  allegations  are  no  injury  to  those  against  whom  they 
are  made,  it  can  be  only  because  the  public  regard  their 
authors  unworthy  of  confidence. 

The  actual  state  of  things  w^ithin  the  bounds  of  the  three 
exscinded  Synods  in  the  State  of  New  York,  may  be  judged 
of  by  the  perusal  of  the  following  letter  of  the  venerable  and 
lamented  Doctor  Richards,  written  in  Nov.,  1838,  and  ad- 
dressed to  the  Rev.  Joseph  C.  Stiles,  D.D  ,  late  pastor  of 
the  Mercer  Street  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  then  residing  in  Kentucky. 

"November  13,  1838. 
"  To  the  Rev.  J.  C.  Stiles  : 

"  My  Dear  Sir  : — I  regret  that  my  engagements  will  not 
allow  me  to  give  you  a  full  and  detailed  account  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical affairs  of  Western  New  York.  All  I  can  do  is 
briclly  to  reply    to  your  several  queries.     You  ask,  first, 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  67 

What  is  the  degree  of  our  corruption  in  doctrine  and  order 
around  me,  in  my  judgment. 

''I  belong  to  the  Synod  of  Geneva,  which  embraces  two 
hundred  and  one  churches — one  hundred  and  forty  organized 
with  a  session  on  strictly  Presbyterian  principles,  and  sixty- 
one  which  have  no  session,  but  which  make  use  of  our  Book 
of  Discipline  in  their  church  courts,  and  submit  their  acts  and 
doings  to  the  supervision  of  Presbytery  as  much  as  if  they 
had  a  session.  They  are,  in  fact,  Presbyterian  churches 
with  a  defective  organization.  Instead  of  doing  their  busi- 
ness by  means  of  a  bench  of  Elders,  they  do  it  by  assembling 
the  male  communicants,  after  the  Congregational  method. 
One  of  our  Presbyteries,  which  has  under  its  care  thirty-nine 
churches,  has  but  two  wlilch  are  not  strictly  Pi-esbyterian, 
Another,  embracing  twenty-five  churches,  has  not  a  single 
church  without  a  regular  session. 

"  Presbyterianism  is  popular  in  this  part  of  the  country,  and 
with  a  little  kind  and  prudent  management,  it  might  become 
universal.  Nothing  but  the  untimely  fears  and  mistaken 
policy  of  some  of  the  good  brethren  in  other  parts  of  the 
church,  has  prevented  it  from  becoming  far  more  prevalent 
than  it  really  is. 

"  As  to  corruption  in  doctrine,  I  know  of  none  which  is 
deep  and  fundamental  among  the  ministers  and  churches 
which  stand  connected  with  our  Synod.  The  ministers  have 
all  solemnly  professed  to  receive  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  Catechism  of  our  church,  as  containing  that  system  of 
doctrine  which  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  At  the 
same  time,  I  do  not  suppose  that  they  consider  this  as 
amounting  to  a  declaration  that  they  receive  every  proposi- 
tion included  in  this  extended  confession,  but  such  things  only 
as  are  vital  to  the  system,  and  which  distinguish  it  from 
Arminianism,  Pelagianism  and  Semipelagianism.  They  be- 
lieve in  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  by  nature — Rejjenera- 
fum  by  the  Sovereign  and  efficacious  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit, — Justification  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  the 


68  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

only  true  and  meritorious  cause — the  persecerance  of  the 
saints,  and  the  inlermlnahle  'punishment  of  the  wicked.  They 
have  no  scruple  about  the  doctrine  of  particular  and  personal 
election,  but  maintain  it  firmly  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
which  ought  to  have  a  place  in  the  instructions  of  the  pulpit. 
"  As  to  our  churches,  their  opinions  may  be  learned  from 
the  brief  confessions  they  use  in  admitting  members  to  full 
communion.  It  is  the  custom  in  this  part  of  the  country, 
when  a  person  is  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  the  church 
upon  his  own  confession,  to  require  a  public  assent  to  a  creed 
embracing  all  the  great  leading  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as 
well  as  his  solemn  and  explicit  engagement  to  lead  a  life  of 
devoted  piety.  It  is  common  for  each  Presbytery  to  super- 
vise the  creeds  made  use  of  by  the  churches  under  its  care. 
Knowing  this  to  be  the  fact,  I  addressed  a  letter  to  each  of 
the  Presbyteries  in  the  bounds  of  the  four  exscinded  Synods, 
requesting  them  to  state  whether  these  confessions,  employed 
at  the  admission  of  members  to  their  communion,  were  con- 
formable in  their  tenor  and  spirit  to  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Catechism  of  our  church,  desiring  them  at  the  same  time 
to  send  me  a  sample  of  them.  The  answer  I  received  was, 
that  these  brief  formulas  fully  accorded  with  the  Confession 
of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  I  have  now  before  me 
tw^enty-six  of  these  confessions  from  as  many  Presbyteries ; 
and  if  I  have  any  judgment  as  to  what  belongs  to  orthodoxy, 
they  are  sound  as  a  roach,  with  the  exception  of  the  article 
on  Atonement.  They  favor  the  idea  of  general  atonement, 
as  John  Calvin  and  the  early  Reformers  did.  Some,  I  sup- 
pose, would  regard  this  as  deviating  from  our  standards  ; 
but,  aside  from  this,  I  do  not  believe  that  Dr.  Green  himself 
would  find  any  fault  with  these  confessions.  I  say  this  con- 
fidently wnth  respect  to  them  all,  one  alone  excepted.  In  one 
of  these  confessions  there  was  not  so  full  a  recognition  of  the 
Divine  decree  extending  to  all  events  absolutely  as  I  could 
desire,  and  yet  the  language  of  Scripture  was  employed, 
which  asserts  that  God  governs  or  works  all  things  after  the 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  69 

counsel  of  his  own  will.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  ministers 
would  demand,  or  the  people  from  time  to  time  would  (jive 
their  public  and  solemn  assent  to  these  confessions,  if  they 
were  far  gone  in  heretical  opinions  ?  Can  you  get  people  in 
our  Methodist  Churches  to  subscribe  to  strong  and  pointed 
Calvinistic  formulas,  supposing  that  their  ministers  were 
wilhng  and  desirous  that  they  should  ? 

"  But  if  this  be  a  true  state  of  the  case,  whence  the  alarm 
which  has  pervaded  every  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
with  respect  to  our  Arminianism,  Pelagianism,  Perfectionism, 
and  I  know  not  what  ?  Has  there  been  no  ground  for  the 
fears  and  suspicions  which  have  been  entertained  ?  I  cannot 
conscientiously  say  that  I  think  there  has  been  none.  A  state 
of  things  has  existed  which  excited  apprehensions  that  some 
were  departing  from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

**  During  the  excitements  which  prevailed  under  the  labors 
of  Messrs.  Burchard  and  Finney,  and  their  associates,  things 
were  said  and  done  which  had  better  have  been  avoided.  A 
new  style  of  preaching  was  introduced,  new  measures  adopted 
and  advocated,  and  occasionally  new  opinions  advanced 
touching  the  pi-ayer  of  faith,  the  method  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
tluence  in  conversion,  and  the  best  method  of  securing  that 
influence  and  promoting  the  conversion  of  sinners.  No  direct 
encroachment,  however,  was  made  upon  any  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  These  were  cheerfully  adm-ttcd, 
and  some  of  them  distinctly  and  powerfully  inculcated.  But 
a  notion  was  imbibed  that  the  doctrine  of  election,  and  of  the 
sinner's  dependence  on  Divine  influence,  and  some  other 
doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  had  heretofore  been  urged 
out  of  due  proportion,  and  that  more  ought  to  be  said  of  the 
sinner's  immediate  obligation  to  repent  and  believe.  In 
pressing  this  obligation,  they  urged  the  sinner's  entire  ability 
to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  Gospel.  In  a  word,  they 
taught  sinners  could,  but  would  not  repent  without  special 
Divine  influence.  Many  believed  then,  and  do  still  believe, 
that  their   language  on  this  subject   was   unguarded,  and 


70  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

likely  to  produce  an  Arminian  impression  on  the  hearer 
That  such  was  the  fact  in  numerous  instances,  there  is  no 
reason  to  question.  Some  of  Mr.  Finney's  converts  doubted 
v.'hether  he  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  election,  and  wrote  to 
him,  while  he  was  in  Boston,  to  know  if  he  did.  He  an- 
swered that  he  did  believe  the  doctrine,  and  that  they  ought 
to  believe  it. 

*'  From  the  manner,  however,  in  which  some  of  our 
preachers  at  that  time  presented  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and 
especially  from  the  fact  that  they  did  not  very  prominently 
present  some  of  them  at  all,  there  was  danger  that  an  Armi- 
nian leaven  would  creep  in,  and  corrupt  the  faith  of  the 
churches.  This  danger  was  not  lessened  by  the  speculations 
of  the  'New  Haven  divines,  and  by  some  other  dubious 
writings  from  New  England. 

**  After  all,  through  the  good  hand  of  God  upon  us,  I  do 
not  believe  that  any  radical  error  has  taken  root  among  us, 
and  is  likely  to  prevail.  I  speak  of  the  churches  in  our  own 
connection.     There  is  scattered  throuorh  our  bounds  a  set  of 

o 

Christians  called  Unionists,  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  sinless 
perfection,  and  other  absurd  notions.  But  they  are  not  of 
us,  and  receive  no  countenance  fi'om  any  of  our  judicatories. 
Were  you  to  ask  me  to  name  the  minister  or  the  church  in 
our  Synod  who  did  not  fully  and  unqualifiedly  believe  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  total  depravity  of  human  nature,  in  regenera- 
tion by  the  injluence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  personal  election 
and  justification  by  faith  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
only,  I  could  not  do  it.  I  have  much  the  same  impressions 
with  respect  to  the  Synods  of  Utica  and  Genesee,  and  the 
Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve ;  but  I  am  not  as  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  members  of  these  Synods.  Still,  it  is  true 
we  do  not  all  see  eye  to  eye.  There  are  shades  of  difference 
in  some  less  important  matters.  What  these  are,  I  have 
neither  time  nor  room  to  state  to  you.  But  allow  me,  in 
conclusion,  to  say,  that  in  my  judgment  there  never  was  a 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  71 

greater  mistake  than  that  under  which  our  Old  School  bre- 
thren are  laborine;. 

"  1st.  As  to  the  prevalence  of  error  in  the  exscinded 
Synod. 

"2d.  As  to  its  cause.  The  state  of  belief  is  not  as  they 
suppose  it.  Nor  do  the  errors  which  have  been  supposed 
to  exist  owe  their  origin  to  any  such  cause  as  they  ascribe 
them  to.  They  seem  to  think  that  Congregationalism  has 
done  all  the  miscliief.  It  has  had  no  more  influence  in  the 
case  than  the  moons  of  Jupiter.  Our  Congregational 
Churches,  as  a  general  fact,  are  the  most  stable  and 
thoroughly  orthodox  churches  we  have.  But  my  sheet 
is  full,  and  I  have  only  room  to  say,  that  I  left  the  Consti- 
tutional Assembly  last  Spring,  from  ill  health  alone. 

"  With  much  afiPection,  I  am  truly  yours, 

"  James  Richards." 
No  one  will  dare  affirm  that  the  testimony  of  Doctor 
Richards  is  unworthy  of  credit.  His  veracity  and  Christian 
character  were  above  suspicion,  and  his  sources  of  informa- 
tion respecting  the  doctrines  preached  by  the  ministers  and 
embraced  by  the  cluirches  connected  with  the  Synods 
of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee,  abundant.  In  view  of  his 
testimony  contained  in  his  letter  to  Doctor  Stiles,  and  the 
repeated  declarations  of  bodies,  composed  of  Constitutional 
Presbyterians,  it  would  really  seem  that  the  charge  of 
heresy  among  them  should  have  ceased,  and  the  exscind- 
ing; acts  of  1837  been  rescinded.  Such  is  not  the  fact. 
The  acts  of  which  we  complain  are  unrepealed,  and  the 
cry  of  heresy  is  still  continued.  In  1848,  a  work  appeared, 
entitled  "  Differences  between  Old  and  New  School  Pres- 
byterians," by  the  Rev.  Lewis  Checsman  of  Rochester,  with 
an  introductory  and  commendatory  chapter  by  the  Rev.  John 
C.  Lord,  D.D.,  of  Buffiilo.  This  woik  has  been  lauded  by 
the  organs  of  the  exscinding  Assembly  as  a  seasonable  and 
highly  important  publication.  In  it  he  charges  those  whom 
he  is  pleased  to  call  New  School  Presbyterians,  with  dupli- 


72  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OP 

city  and  insincerity,  denying  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity, 
making  void  the  Spirit's  dispensation  in  the  renewal  of  the 
heart  in  the  divine  image,  and  maintaining  that  regeneration 
is  the  act  of  man; — of  hmiting  the  nature  of  the  atonement, 
denying  that  Christ  died  to  satisfy  the  law  and  justice  of 
God,  and  justification  by  His  righteousness,  and  affirms  that 
the  revivals  which  take  place  under  their  ministry,  are  the 
work,  not  of  God,  but  of  men.  It  is  truly  surprising  and 
deeply  afiiictive  that  such  charges  continue  to  be  brought 
against  men  who  have  often  publicly  and  solemnly  denied 
them.  Are  Constitutional  Presbyterians  destitute  of  common 
veracity — perjured  men,  who,  under  the  solemnity  of  ordina- 
tion vows,  give  their  assent  to  formulas  of  doctrine  which 
they  do  not  believe  ?  We  are  persuaded  many  of  our  breth- 
ren of  *'  the  new-basis"  Assembly  would  not  affirm  that  they 
are.  How  they  can  hear  men  in  whom  they  profess  to  have 
confidence  thus  branded  as  heretics  and  neglect  to  bear  tes- 
timony against  these  base  calumnies,  is  truly  strange  and 
mysterious.  In  the  estimation  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  it  is  not  a  light  thing  for  one  branch  of  it  falsely  to 
accuse  another,  and  hold  its  ministers  up  before  the  pubhc  as 
*'  blind  leaders  of  the  bhnd,"  and  unfit  to  be  entrusted  with 
the  care  of  souls.  Our  exscinding  brethren  seem  to  have 
forgotten  that  a  written  constitution  is  binding  upon  those 
who  profess  to  adopt  it,  and  that  the  ninth  commandment 
has  never  been  repealed. 

That  the  views  of  Constitutional  Presbyterians  respecting 
a  few  points  of  doctrine  differ  from  those  who  are  continu- 
ally reiterating  the  charge  of  heresy  against  them,  is  not  de- 
nied. And  it  is  equally  true  that  the  latter  also  are  very  far 
fiom  being  agreed  among  themselves.  Some  of  them  be- 
lieve in  the  identity  of  the  posterity  of  Adam  with  him  in  his 
first  transgression ;  others  that  there  was  a  literal  transfer  of 
his  sin  to  them,  as  also  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  His 
people.  These,  however,  are  not  the  views  entertained  by  the 
Professors  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  and  it  is 


JlJSTIFICATIOxN    EXAMINED.  73 

presumed  of  a  large  majority  of  those  who  claim  to  be  the 
only  conservators  and  expositors  of  the  truth  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  The  doctrine  on  these  subjects,  as  taught  in 
the  Commentary  of  Professor  Hodge,  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Komans  and  the  Biblical  Repertory,  is,  that  the  posterity  of 
Adam  are  held  legally  resjwnsihle  for  his  sin,  and  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  placed  to  the  account  of  those  that 
believe  in  Hwi,  so  that  thei/,  for  If  is  sake,  are  treated  as  if  they 
were  personally  righteous.  They  also  maintain  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  were  not  the  same  either  in  their  nature  or 
degree  with  those  which  the  elect  would  have  endured,  had 
they  suffered  what  their  sins  deserve.  Others  maintain  that 
Christ  suffered  for  the  elect,  the  literal  2>€nalty  of  the  law. 
Some  of  them  maintain  that  men  by  nature  have  no  ability 
whatever  to  do  the  will  of  God ;  others  that  the  only  ob- 
stacle to  their  obedience  is  their  imwUlingness  to  obey.  And 
yet  all  of  them,  we  doubt  not,  with  equal  sincerity,  adopt 
*'  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms 
as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures." And  Constitutional  Presbyterians  do  the  same,  not- 
withstanding they  differ  from  them  upon  a  few  points  of  doc- 
trine. The  only  ones  to  which  they  attach  much  importance 
are  these.  The  first  respects  the  connection  between  the  first 
sin  of  Adam  and  tliat  of  his  posterity.  Let  them^be  heard  on 
this  subject  in  their  own  language  in  their  statement  of  true 
doctrine.  They  say,  "  By  divine  constitution,  Adam  was  so 
the  head  and  representative  of  the  race,  that  as  a  consequence 
of  his  transgression,  all  mankind  became  morally  corrupt,  and 
liable  to  death,  temporal  and  eternal." 

We  also  differ  from  most  of  our  brethren  in  connection 
with  the  other  Assembly,  respecting  the  extent  of  the  atone- 
ment. With  them,  w^e  beheve  none  but  the  elect  will  be 
savingly  benefited  by  thei  death  of  Christ,  but  that  it  was  a 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  so  that  whosoever  will, 
may  be  saved. 

From  a  majority  of  those  in  connection  with  the  other  As- 


74  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OP 

Bembly,  we  dissent  from  their  views  of  the  nature  of  the  in- 
abihty  of  unrenewed  men  to  obey  the  commands  of  God. 
They  maintain  that  men  by  nature  have  no  ability  whatever 
to  do  the  will  of  God, — that  they  are  in  the  same  sense  un- 
able to  do  it,  that  they  are  to  blot  out  the  sun  in  the  heavens 
or  create  a  vforld.  The  views  of  Constitutional  Presby- 
terians on  this  subject  may  be  learned  from  their  own  lan- 
guage in  their  statement  of  true  doctrines.  They  say, 
"  While  sinners  have  all  the  faculties  necessary  to  a  perfect 
moral  agency  and  a  just  accountability,  such  is  their  love  of 
sin  and  opposition  to  God  and  His  law,  that  independently  of 
the  renewing  influence  or  almighty  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
they  never  will  comply  with  the  commands  of  God."  Or  in 
other  words,  they  believe  the  onlg  obstacle  to  their  obecJience 
and  salvation  is,  their  unwillingness  to  obey  the  Gospel  and 
be  saved  on  the  conditions  which  it  proposes. 

Constitutional  Presbyterians  do  not  beheve  their  views  on 
these  subjects  to  be  of  iw  practical  importance,  but  they 
have  uniformly  maintained  that  the  differences  between  them- 
selves and  their  brethren  respecting  them,  were  such  as  ought 
not  to  destroy  mutual  confidence  and  prevent  them  from 
dwelling  together  in  unity.  Both  are  agreed  in  believing  the 
jrreat  facts,  that  the  whole  race  were  involved  in  sin  and  ruin 
by  the  sin  of  Adam,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  only  and  an 
all- sufficient  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men,  in  its  nature  strictly 
vicarious  and  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  but  that  owing  to 
their  utter  aversion  to  holiness,  and  love  of  sin,  by  nature, 
none  will  ever  trust  in  it  for  remission  and  eternal  life,  but 
by  the  special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  present  at  length  our  reasons  for 
entertaining  the  views  on  these  subjects  which  have  just  been 
presented.  It  cannot  be  irrelevant,  however,  to  show,  that 
men,  whose  orthodoxy  our  brethren  will  not  call  in  question, 
are  substantially  agreed  with  us.  Calvin  may  not  always  have 
been  consistent  with  himself  when  speaking  of  the  influence 
of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity.     The  following  language 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  75 

of  tbe  great  reformer  contains  a  perspicuous  statement  of 
our  views  on  this  subject.  "When  it  is  said  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  renders  us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment,  it  is  not  to 
be  understood  as  if  ive,  though  innocent,  were  undeservedly 
loaded  with  the  guilt  of  his  sin;  but  because  vre  are  all 
subject  to  a  curse  in  consequence  of  his  transgression,  he  is 
therefore  said  to  have  involved  us  in  guilt."  This  language 
is  quoted  from  Book  II.,  Chap.  I.,  of  his  Institutes.  In  his 
commentary  on  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
he  says,  "  Some  contend  our  ruin  to  be  effected  in  such  a 
manner  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  that  we  persish,  not  from  any 
fault  of  our  own,  but  merely  because  our  first  father  had,  as 
it  were,  sinned  for  us.  Paul,  however,"  he  adds,  "  expressly 
affirms  that  sin  is  propagated  to  all  those  who  suffer  punish- 
ment on  its  account.  And  the  apostle  presses  this  still 
closer,  when  shortly  after  he  assigns  a  reason  why  all  the 
posterity  of  Adam  is  subject  to  the  power  of  death,  namely, 
because  we  have  all  sinned.'" 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  views  of  Calvin  respecting 
the  extent  of  the  atonement  in  the  early  part  of  his  life, 
near  its  close  when  he  wrote  his  commentary  on  the  Romans, 
in  his  exposition  of  the  10th  verse  of  the  5th  chapter  of  that 
Epistle,  he  says  expressly,  "Christ,  by  his  death,  according 
to  Paul,  reconciled.us  to  God,  because  he  was  an  expiatory 
sacrifice  by  yf\\\Q\\  atonement  was  made  to  God  for  the  loorld.^^ 

In  explaining  the  18th  verse  of  this  chapter,  he  employs 
the  following  language,  viz.,  **  Paul  makes  grace  common  to 
all,  because  it  is  proposed  and  declared  to  all,  but  in  reality 
not  extended  to  all ;  for  though  Christ  suflfered  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world,  and,  by  the  kindness  of  God,  is  offered 
indifferently  to  all,  yet  he  is  not  apprehended  and  laid  hold 
of  by  all  mankind." 

On  this  subject  it  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  the  testimony 
of  others,  whose  orthodoxy  is  acknowledged  by  our  esxcind- 
ing  brethren,  for  it  has  been  conceded  by  tlieir  accredited  or- . 
gans  that  the  doctrine  of  a  general  atonement  is  no  longer  to 


76  THE  ALLEGED  GROUNDS  OF 

be  regarded  as  a  heresy.  The  Bibhcal  Repertory,  in  its  re- 
view of  "  The  Act  and  Testimony,"  (a  document  which  will 
be  noticed  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  narrative)  inquires, 
**  Is  it  to  be  expected  that  at  this  time  of  the  day,  the  Assembly 
vrould  solemnly  condemn  all  who  do  not  hold  the  doctrine 
of  a  limited  atonement  ?"  Even  the  late  Doctor  Greene,  of 
Philadelphia,  one  of  the  distinguished  leaders  of  the  self- 
styled  reform  party,  which  rent  the  Church  asunder,  in  a 
sermon,  which  he  delivered  Dec.  14th,  1836,  said,  "  All  who 
hold  to  real  atonement  are  agreed  in  everything  that  is  ma- 
ter iaV  We  would  fain  hope  no  one  hereafter  will  ring  the 
alarm-bell  of  heresy  for  the  purpose  of  summoning  the  Church 
to  the  work  of  thrusting  out  of  her  pale  believers  in  a  general 
atonement. 

After  having  placed  a  few  testimonies  before  our  readers 
to  show  that  the  only  inability  to  do  the  will  of  God,  of 
which  the  impenitent  are  the  subjects,  consists  in  their  un- 
wilHngness  to  do  it,  we  trust  no  attempt  will  be  made  to 
place  the  fearful  brand  of  heresy  upon  us  for  agreeing  with 
them.  Dr.  Twiss,  the  Prolocutor  of  the  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines, who  framed  our  Confession  (tf  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
will  be  regarded  by  all  as  an  unexceptionable  authority.  He 
says,  "  The  inability  to  do  what  is  pleasing  and  acceptable 
to  God,  is  not  a  natural,  but  moral  inability.  The  natural 
poiver  of  doing  anything  according  to  our  will,  is  preserved 
to  all,  but  7iot  moral  power.'^ 

Howe  was  a  personal  friend  of  Dr.  Twiss.  He  says,  "  For 
notwithstanding  the  soul's  natural  capacities  before  asserted, 
its  moral  incapacity,  I  mean  its  wicked  aversation  from  God, 
is  such  as  none  but  God  Himself  can  overcome,  nor  is  that 
aversation  the  less  culpable  for  that  it  is  so  hardly  overcome, 
but  the  more.  It  is  an  aversation  of  will ;  and  who  sees  not 
that  every  man  is  more  wicked,  according  as  his  will  is 
more  wickedly  bent  ?  Hence  his  impotency  or  inability  to 
turn  to  God,  is  not  such  that  he  cannot  turn  if  he  loould  ; 
but  it  consits  in  this,  that  he  is  not  willing. ^^ 


JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED.  77 

Dr.  Watts,  an  eminent  divine  and  the  prince  of  evangelical 
poets,  says,  "Man  has  lost,  not  hh natural poiver  to  obey  the 
law  ;  he  is  bound  then  as  far  as  natural  powers  will  reach. 
I  own  his  faculties  are  greatly  corrupted  by  vicious  inclina- 
tions, or  sinful  propensities,  which  has  been  happily  called  by 
our  divines,  a  moral  inability  to  fulfil  the  law,  rather  than  a 
natural  imimssibility  of  it." 

Matthew  Henrj'-,  the  eminent  commentator  on  the  Bible,  in 
his  exposition  of  Ezekiel  18  :  31,  says,  "The  reason  why  sin- 
ners die,  is,  because  they  loill  die,  they  will  go  down  the  way 
that  leads  to  death,  and  not  come  up  to  the  terms  on  which 
life  is  offered.  St.  Austin,"  he  remarks,  "  well  explains  the 
precept ;  *  God  does  not  command  impossibiUties,  but  admon- 
ishes us  by  His  command  to  do  what  is  possible,  and  seek 
what  is  not.'  " 

Dr.  Witlierspoon  was  no  heretic,  even  our  accusers  "  them- 
selves being  judges."  In  his  sermon  on  the  yoke  of  Christ, 
he  uses  this  language — "  Now  consider,  I  pray  you,  what  sort 
of  inability  this  is.  It  is  not  natural,  but  moral.  It  is  not 
want  of  power,  but  inclination.  Nothing  is  required  of  us 
that  is  unsuitable  to  our  situation,  or  above  our  natural  pow- 
ers ;  so  far  from  it,  that  even  what  ivas  our  duty  before,  if 
by  any  accident,  it  becomes  impossible  in  this  sense,  it  ceases 
to  be  a  duty."        - 

These  quotations  make  it  abundantly  evident  that  Consti- 
tutional Presbyterians,  in  respect  to  the  most  important 
points  concerning  which  they  differ  from  their  accusing  breth- 
ren, embrace  no  novelties.  They  have  been  believed  and 
publicly  taught  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  divines  of  the 
last  two  centuries.  If  we  be  still  denounced  as  heretics  for 
embracing  them,  we  have  the  consolation  of  finding  ourselves 
in  excellent  company  ; — with  men  "  of  whom  the  world  was 
not  worthy."  And  we  believe  the  language  of  "the  Con- 
fession of  Faith"  legitimately  admits  of  an  interpretation 
consistent  with  the  views  of  the  doctrines  just  stated.  We 
therefore  cordially  adopt  it  "as  containing  the  s?/s^^?i  of  doc- 
4 


78  JUSTIFICATION    EXAMINED. 

trines  tauglit  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  We  do  it  in  conform- 
ity with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  adopting  act  of  1*729, 
•which  has  before  been  quoted.  '''  And  we  utterly  repudiate 
the  name  of  New  School  Presbyterians,  by  which  maligners 
have  attempted  to  bring  odium  upon  us.  In  respect  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  a  standard  of  doctrinal 
belief,  we  are  Old- School  Presbyterians,  and  those  who 
falsely  accuse  us,  are  the  JVew. /'Subsequently,  we  are  confi- 
dent it  will  appear  this  is  the  fact  also  in  reference  to  our 
strict  adherence  to  the  Form  of  Government. 


(^imttx  ifiwttiu 


THE  ALLEGED,  SHOWN  TO  BE,  NOT  THE  REAL  NOR  CHIEF  REASONS  FOR 
THE  EXCISION  OF  THE  FOUR  SYNODS. 

It  cannot,  we  think,  be  deemed  an  unauthonzed  assump- 
tion to  say,  that  any  one  "who  has  read  the  preceding  chapters 
with  candor  and  attention,  must  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  authors  and  defenders  of 
the  exscinding  acts,  could  not  have  been  the  chief  ones  for  a 
procedure  so  manifestly  unconstitutional  and  oppressive.  The 
conviction  of  every  such  reader  of  the  foregoing  pages,  we 
believe,  must  be  that  their  authors  were  urged  to  the  per- 
formance of  them  by  other,  and,  in  their  judgment,  at  least, 
stronger  reasons  than  those  by  which  they  have  attempted 
to  justify  them.  The  following  considerations  constrain  us 
to  believe  such  was~the  fact. 

1.  Had  the  unconstitutionality  of  "the  Plan  of  Union,'* 
as  they  allege,  been  the  chief  ground  for  cutting  off  the  four 
Synods,  they  would  have  felt  constrained,  in  like  manner,  to 
cast  out  the  Synods  of  Albany,  New  Jersey  and  Illinois. 
These  Synods  had  churches  under  their  care,  whose  disci- 
pline was  conducted  upon  Congregational  priYiciples.  These 
churches  sent  committee-men  to  their  respective  Presbyteries, 
and  in  some  instances,  to  the  higher  judicatories,  who  were 
admitted  to  all  the  rights  of  ruling  elders.  Instead,  however, 
of  casting  them  out  of  the  church  with  the  four  Synods  be- 
fore named,  the  Assembly  merely  passed  the  following  reso- 
lutions respecting  them,  viz.  : — 


80  THE  ALLEGED,  NOT  THE  REAL 

*'  Resolved,  1.  That  the  Synods  of  Albany  and  !N'ew  Jersey 
be  enjoined  to  take  special  order  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
irregularities  in  church  order,  charged  by  common  fame  upon 
some  of  their  Presbyteries  and  churches.  2.  That  the  Synod 
of  Illinois  be  enjoined  to  take  special  order  in  regard  to  errors 
in  church  order,  and  errors  in  doctrine,  so  charged  upon  several 
of  its  Presbyteries." — Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  \d>Z*l, pages 
496,  497. 

If  the  alleged  were  the  real  reasons  for  casting  out  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  the  four  Synods,  why  did  they  not  in 
like  manner  cast  out  the  three  Synods  named  in  the  resolu- 
tions just  quoted?  Concerning  Presbyteries  embracing 
churches  thus  constituted,  the  exscinders  made  the  affirma- 
tion, "  This  Assembly  can  recognize  no  Presbytery,  thus  con- 
stituted, as  belonging  to  the  Presbyterian  Church." — [Min- 
utes of  the  Assembly,  page  451).  Had  they  been  governed 
by  the  principle  laid  down  in  this  quotation  in  cutting  off  the 
four  Synods,  they  could  not  have  suffered  those  of  Albany, 
New  Jersey,  and  Illinois  to  remain  in  the  bosom  of  the  church. 
They  would  have  thrust  them  out,  and  with  the  Synod  of 
New  Jersey,  the  Professors  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Princeton,  as  they  did  the  Professors  in  the  sister  Institution 
at  Auburn.  In  view  of  these  facts,  who  can  believe  that  the 
alleged  unconstitutionality  of  "  the  Plan  of  Union"  was  a 
governing  motive  with  the  Assembly  in  declaring  the  four 
Synods  no  longer  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  these  United  States  ? 

2.  Equally  evident  is  it  that  departures  from  Presbyterian 
order  and  errors  in  doctrine,  could  not  have  controlled  the 
leaders  of  the  High  Church  Party  in  procuring  the  passage 
of  those  acts.  That  some,  who  voted  for  them,  and  others 
who  have  attempted  to  justify  them,  had  been  made  to  be- 
lieve many  of  the  churches  in  the  disowned  Synods  were 
guilty  of  the  disorders  and  heresies  laid  to  their  charge,  is 
undoubtedly  true.  A  little  candid  and  patient  examination 
of  facts,  however,  would  have  furnished  them  abundant  evi- 


REASONS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  81 

dence  that  they  had  been  misled  by  statements  either  wholly 
without  foundation,  or  grossly  exaggerated.  To  our  certain 
knowledge,  men  have  been  left  undisturbed,  and  are  now  in 
good  standing  in  then*  body,  who  employed  the  same  meas- 
ures to  promote  revivals,  the  use  of  which  within  the  bounds 
of  the  ejected  Synods,  was  asserted  to  be  one  of  the  strong 
grounds  for  their  excision,  while  others,  who  never  resorted 
to,  but  firmly  resisted  them,  were  ruthlessly  thrust  out  of  the 
church.  It  is  also  a  fact  of  equal  notoriety,  that  they  have 
scores,  if  not  hundreds  of  ministers  in  their  branch  of  the 
church,  whose  doctrinal  creed  is  the  same  with  that  contain- 
ed in  the  "  statement  of  true  doctrine"  presented  by  the 
minority  of  the  Assembly  to  that  body,  and  which  was  re- 
affirmed by  the  Auburn  Convention.  Had  the  reprobated 
measures  and  alleged  departures  from  sound  doctrine 
been,  as  the  ruling  spirits  in  the  Assembly  affirmed,  one  of 
the  chief  grounds  for  declaring  the  four  Synods  out  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  they  would  have  cast  out  all  who  were 
obnoxious  to  the  same  charges. 

Moreover,  only  a  few  years  previous  to  the  division  of  the 
church,  men  whose  orthodoxy  the  leaders  of  the  professed 
reform  party  would  be  slow  to  call  in  question,  gave  their 
decided  testimony  in  favor  of  the  soundness  in  the  faith  of 
the  great  body  of  ~iier  ministers  and  members.  The  editor 
of  *'  The  Western  Luminary,"  a  paper  decidedly  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  exscinders,  published  "  the  Act  and  Testimo- 
ny," accompanied  with  these  remarks  :  "We  give  it  simply 
as  an  article  of  news, — a  portion  of  the  history  of  the  times. 
We  think  it  but  due,  however,  to  the  ministry  and  eldership 
of  this  region,  to  state,  that  so  far  as  our  acquaintance  ex- 
tends, we  know  of  no  one  who  holds  any  of  the  doctrinal 
views  which  are  justly  designated  as  errors  in  '  the  Act  and 
Testimony.'  "'* 

The  conductors  of  the  Biblical  Repertory,  in  their  review 

*  "  Western  Luminary,"  of  Aug.  13th,  1S3  J,  as  quoted  by  H.  Woods 
in  his  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Controversy,  page  69. 


82  THE  ALLEGED,  NOT  THE  REAL 

of  "  the  Act  and  Testimony,"  after  having  expressed  their 
firm  belief  that  no  such  crisis  as  that  mentioned  in  that  docu- 
ment existed,  say,  *'  We  have  not  the  least  idea  that  one- 
tenth  of  the  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  would  de- 
liberately countenance  and  sustain  the  errors  specified.  We 
believe,  indeed,  that  there  is  a  number  of  men  in  our  church 
who  hold  doctrinal  opinions  which  ought  to  have  precluded 
their  admission,  and  who  should  now  be  visited  by  regular 
ecclesiastical  process.  But  we  believe  the  number  to  be  com- 
paratively small."  In  a  subsequent  part  of  their  review,  after 
expressing  their  pleasure  that  one  Presbytery  in  which  they 
knew  there  was  not  *'  a  single  adherent  of  the  Old  School, 
had  refused  to  ordain  a  candidate,  who  held  the  popular 
errors  on  depravity  and  regeneration,"  they  say,  *'  There  are 
not  wanting;  other  decisive  and  cheerinsf  intimations  that  the 
portentous  union  between  the  New  Divinity  and  the  New 
Measures,  which  threatened  to  desolate  the  church,  has,  at 
least  for  the  present,  done  its  worst." 

The  sentiments  expressed  in  the  preceding  quotations  from 
"  The  Western  Luminary,"  and  the  "  Bibhcal  Repertory," 
concerning  the  state  of  the  Church,  were  undoubtedly  cor- 
rect. If  so,  no  small  share  of  credulity  is  required  to  induce 
the  belief,  that  with  well-informed  men,  the  reasons  assigned 
for  the  excision  of  the  four  Synods  were  the  controlling 
ones  in  the  performance  of  an  act  wholly  unauthorized  by 
the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  so  arbitrary  and  oppress- 
ive. And  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  it  was  but  three  years 
previous  to  the  passing  of  this  act,  that  the  testimonies  just 
cited  were  given.  Admitting  that  dangerous  errors  actually 
existed  in  the  Church  to  the  extent  supposed  by  the  Editors 
of  the  Repertory,  can  it  be  believed  they  could,  in  that 
brief  period,  have  so  increased  as  to  constitute  a  principal 
motive  for  casting  out  of  the  Church  so  large  a  portion  of 
her  ministers  and  members  ?  Only  a  year  previous  to  that 
disorganizing  and  unrighteous  procedure,  the  conductors  of 
the  Repertory  did  not  believe  they  had  increased  at  all.     In 


REASONS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  83 

their  review  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  1836, 
they  say,  "  Our  faith  in  the  orthodoxy  of  the  great  body  of 
the  Presbyterian  denomination,  much  as  we  disapprove  of 
the  acts  of  the  majority  of  the  late  Assembly,  remains  un- 
shaken ;  and  we  feel  satisfied  that  it  requires  nothing  but 
wisdom,  union,  and  efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  orthodox,  to 
make  the  fact  abundantly  evident." — Vol.  8th,  page  473. 

To  these  statements  respecting  the  orthodoxy  of  the  great 
body  of  the  Church,  we  give  our  unqualified  assent,  and  ap- 
ply the  inquiry  of  the  reviewers  respecting  its  state  iu  the 
interval  of  the  Assemblies  of  1835  and  1836,  to  its  state  in 
the  intervening  year  between  the  Assemblies  of  1836  and 
1837.  "Has  the  state  of  the  Church  materially  changed 
during  the  last  twelve  months  ?"  We  answer  the  inquiry 
in  their  own  language.  "  This  cannot  be  pretended."  In 
view  of  the  facts  which  we  have  placed  before  our  readers, 
we  leave  them  to  decide  whether,  in  the  circumstances,  it  were 
possible  for  the  ruling  spirits  in  the  Assembly  of  1837  to 
have  been  wholly  or  even  chiefly  influenced  in  casting  the 
four  Synods  out  of  the  Church,  by  a  desire  to  promote  its 
purity,  order  and  peace. 


THE  REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  PASSING  OF  THE  ACTS  OF  EXCISION, 

STATED. 

In  order  to  gain  a  knowledge  of  the  real  causes  of  the 
acts  -which  rent  the  Church  asunder,  some  of  the  facts  of 
its  previous  history  must  be  examined. 

*'It  will  be  found  upon  a  reference  to  the  history  of  by- 
gone days,  that  on  the  6th  day  of  April,  1691,  the  Presby- 
terian and  Congregational  denominations  of  Christians,  in 
Great  Britain,  met  at  Stepney,  and  there  by  the  blessing  of 
Almighty  God,  after  talking  over  their  diflferences,  and  their 
agreements,  consummated  a  union  of  the  two  denominations, 
by  adopting  what  was  the  then  called  'HEADS  OF 
AGREEMENT,'  embracing  a  few  cardinal  principles,  which 
were  to  govern  them  in  their  fraternal  intercourse." — See 
Minutes  of  the  Constitutional  Assembly/,  pa(/e  56. 

The  first  Presbytery  in  America  was  formed  in  1'704,  "  by 
the  name  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  upon  the  liberal 
principles  which  governed  the  London  Association,"  and  was 
composed  partly  of  Presbyterian  and  partly  of  Congrega- 
tional ministers  and  churches.  The  Rev.  Jedediah  Andrews, 
the  first  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  Phila- 
delphia, was  one  of  the  original  members  of  this  Presbytery. 
He  was  a  native  of  New  England,  and  decidedly  favorable 
to  Congregational  Church  government. 

In  1*716  "the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  was  formed  out  of 
the  Presbyteries  of  Philadelphia,  New  Castle,   Snow  Hill 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  85 

and  Long  Island,  the  last  three  having  grown  up  after  the 
formation  of  the  first  in  1704." 

See  Minutes  of  the  Constitutional  AssemhJij,  page  50  ;  also 
the  late  Dr.  Miller  s  Catechism  on  the  "  Rise,  Progress  and 
Present  State  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,"  in  manuscript,  iwepared  for  the  use  of  his  pupils. 

"  Fourteen  years  after  the  formation  of  the  Synod  of  Phil- 
adelphia, the  Rev.  Mr.  Andrews,  in  a  late  letter  to  Mr.  Prince, 
says,  that  in  the  then  existing  state  of  things,  *  we  call  our- 
selves Presbyterians,  none  pretending  to  be  called  Congrega- 
tionalists,  and  our  ministers  are  all  Presbyterians,  though 
most  of  them  are  from  New  England.'  " 

During  all  this  period,  the  Church  of  Scotland,  instead  of 
imbibing  the  liberal  principles  of  the  age,  which  had  resulted 
in  the  fraternal  union  of  1691,  in  London,  and  in  the  estab- 
lishing of  a  modified  Presbyterianism  in  America,  still  ad- 
hered to  her  arbitrary  principles,  as  will  appear  from  the  fact, 
that  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  in  1712,  only  four  years 
before  the  formation  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  they  sol- 
emnly bore  their  testimony  against  religious  toleration. 

In  1724,  those  ministers  from  Scotland  who  came  over  to 
this  country,  and  who,  in  the  language  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mil- 
ler, "  were  desirous  to  carry  into  effect  the  system  to  which 
they  had  been  accustomed  in  all  its  extent  and  strictness," 
began  to  insist  that  the  entire  system  of  the  Scottish  Church 
be  received  in  this  country."'^  This  demand  led  to  the  adopt- 
ing act  of  1729,  which  was  a  return  to  (or  reaffirmation  of) 
"the  liberal  principles  of  1691,  upon  which  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America  was  based,  and  is  as  follows  :  'Although 
the  Synod  do  not  claim  or  pretend  to  any  authority  of  im- 
posing our  faith  on  other  men's  consciences,  but  do  profess  our 
just  dissatisfaction  with,  and  abhorrence  of  such  impositions, 
and  do  not  only  disclaim  all  legislative  power  and  authority 
in  the  Church,  being  willing  to  receive  one  another  as  Christ 
has  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  admit  to  fellowship 

*  See  Dr.  Miller's  Catecliism  just  referred  to. 

4# 


86  REAI.    GROUNDS  OF    THE    EXCISION. 

in  Church  ordinances  all  such  as  we  have  grounds  to  believe 
that  Christ  will,  at  last,  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
yet  we  are  undoubtedly  obliged  to  take  care  that  "  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints^'  be  kept  pure  and  uncor- 
rupt  among  us,  and  so  handed  down  to  our  posterity  ;  and 
do  therefore  agree,  that  all  the  ministers  of  this  Synod,  or 
that  shall  hereafter  be  admitted  to  this  Synod,  shall  de- 
clare their  agreement  in  and  approbation  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  being  in  cdl  essential 
and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  and  sound  words,  and  sys- 
tems of  Christian  doctrine,  and  do  also  adopt  the  said  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  the  confession  of  our 
faith.  And  we  do  also  agree  that  the  Presbyteries  within  our 
bounds  shall  always  take  care  not  to  admit  any  candidate  for 
the  ministry  into  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  functions,  but 
what  declares  his  agreement  in  opinion  with  all  the  essential 
and  necessary  articles  of  said  Confession,  either  by  subscrib- 
ing the  said  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  or  by  ver- 
bal declaration  of  his  assent  thereto,  as  such  minister  or  can- 
didate shall  think  best.  And  in  case  any  minister  of  this 
Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry,  shall  have  any 
scruples  with  regard  to  any  article  or  articles  of  said  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  or  Catechisms,  he  shall,  at  the  time  of  his 
making  such  declaration,  declare  his  sentiments  to  the  Pres- 
bytery or  Synod,  who  shall,  notwithstanding,  admit  him  to 
the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  min- 
isterial communion,  if  either  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  shall 
judge  his  scruples  or  mistakes  to  be  only  about  articles  not 
essential  and  necessary  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government. 
But  if  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  judge  such  minister  or 
candidate  erroneous  in  essential  and  necessary  articles  of 
faith,  the  Synod  or  Presbytery  shall  declare  him  incapa- 
ble of  communion  with  them.  And  the  Synod  do  solemn- 
ly agree,  that  none  of  us  will  traduce  or  use  any  opprobrious 
terms  toward  those  who  differ  from  us  in  those  extra  essen- 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  87 

tial  and  not  necessary  points  of  doctrine,  but  treat  them  with 
the  same  friendship,  kindness  and  brotherly  love,  as  if  noth- 
ing had  happened.'  " — Minutes  of  the  Constitutional  Assem- 
hhj,  1839,  pages  bQ,  57. 

This  instrument  does  immortal  honor  to  its  authors  and 
those  who  received  it  as  a  bond  of  Christian  union  and  fel- 
lowship It  provides  for  the  preservation,  "  pure  and  entire," 
of  the  fi-ystem  of  doctrine  embraced  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms.  To  errors  which  are  subversive  of 
this  system  it  gives  not  the  least  approval  or  even  toleration, 
and  at  the  same  time  admits  what  is  undoubtedly  true  of 
every  human  symbol  of  doctrinal  belief,  equally  extensive 
and  minute  in  its  details,  that  it  embraces  some  things  in  re- 
gard to  which  those  who  sincerely  adopt  it,  may  lawfully 
differ.  It  likewise  bound  those  who  adopted  it,  to  treat  each 
other,  their  minor  differences  notwithstanding,  with  Christian 
courtesy  and  brotherly  affection.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
how  it  could  have  been  better  adapted  to  keep  "  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Had  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  this  country  been  governed  by  the  pacific  and 
magnanimous  principles  of  this  act,  she  would  at  this  time 
have  been  a  united  body,  presenting  to  the  world  the  lovely 
and  commanding  spectacle  of  brethren  dwelling  together  in 
unity,  and  consecraTmg  their  united  energies  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  kingdom  and  honor  of  her  enthroned  and  glori- 
fied Head.  But  unhappily  other  counsels  and  a  widely  dif- 
ferent spirit  prevailed. 

"  In  1730  we  find  the  Presbytery  of  Newcastle,  in  the 
face  of  these  conciliatory  measures  of  the  Synod,  adopting 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  being  in  all  things 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God — and  in  1732,  the  new  Pres- 
bytery of  Donegal  followed  their  example,  and  promised 
*  forever  thereafter  to  adhere  thereto.' 

In  1736  that  party  who  were  in  favor  of  the  strong  mea- 
sures of  the  Scottish  Church,  had  gained  so  much  ascen- 
dency, that  they  brought  a  majority  of  the  Synod  to  follow 


88  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

the  example  of  the  two  Presbyteries  of  Newcastle  and  Done- 
gal, and  adopt  the  Confession,  Catechisms  and  Directory  of 
the  Westminster  of  Divines  ;  without  alteration  or  exception, 
thus  establishing  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  control 
Synods  and  persecute  the  Church." — Minutes  of  the  Consti- 
tutional Assembly,  1S39,  page  57. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  "  this  rash  departure  from 
the  tolerant  and  fraternal  principles  of  1691  in  Eno-land,  and 
of  1*729  in  America,"  was  followed  by  most  disastrous  con- 
sequences. The  parties  reposed  but  little  confidence  in  each 
other,  and  their  mutual  complaints  and  criminations  produced 
alienation  and  strife.  These  evils  were  greatly  increased  by 
diversity  of  opinion  on  other  points  of  great  practical  impor- 
tance. The  ultra  Presbyterians,  who  had  succeeded  in  secur- 
ing a  majority  of  votes  in  tlie  Synod  in  favor  of  a  rigid  ad- 
herence to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechisms  and  Direc- 
toiy  in  every  minute  particular,  were  exceedingly  lax  in  their 
views  respecting  the  importance  of  vital  piety  as  a  qualifica- 
tion for  membership  in  the  church  and  the  Christian  ministry. 
In  candidates  for  the  former,  they  required  doctrinal  know- 
ledge, and  in  those  for  the  ministry,  learning  and  an  unquali- 
fied assent  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  but  opposed  the 
strict  examination  of  both  in  regard  to  their  acquaintance  with 
experimental  religion.  The  other  party,  convinced  that  vital 
piety  is  of  paramount  importance,  insisted  that  the  examina- 
tion of  candidates  for  church  fellowship  and  the  sacred  office 
of  the  ministry,  should  be  more  strict  respecting  the  reality 
of  their  conversion  to  God,  tlian  the  other  qualifications  con- 
cerning which  their  brethren  were  so  strenuous  and  unyield- 
ing.* 

During  this  unhappy  state  of  things,  the  Rev.  George 
Whitefield  paid  his  second  visit  to  this  country.  His  labors, 
and  the  extensive  and  glorious  revivals  of  religion  which 
they  were  instrumental  in  producing,  were  the  occasion  of 

*  See  Doet.  Miller's  Catechism  before  referred  to,  also  the  "  Great 
Awakening,"  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Tracy,  pages  22,  23. 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.         89 

greatly  increasing. the  dissensions  vvhicli  for  years  had  agita- 
ted the  church,  and  producing  a  wider  separation  of  the  par- 
ties. The  ultra  Presbyterians  refused  to  admit  Whitefield  to 
.their  pulpits,  pronounced  him  a  wild  enthusiast,  and  the  re- 
vivals which  attended  his  ministry,  mere  fanatical  excite- 
ments. The  more  liberal  and  pious  portion  of  the  church 
regarded  Whitefield  as  a  devoted  and  highly  honored  servant 
of  God,  rejoiced  in  his  success,  and  encouraged  and  assisted 
him  in  his  labors.* 

These  dissensions  concerning  the  manner  of  adopting  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  the  necessity  of  experimental  religion 
as  a  qualification  for  membership  in  the  church  and  for 
the  Christian  ministry,  the  labors  of  Whitefield  and  thvi  reli- 
gious interest  which  they  were  instrumental  in  producing, 
brought  on  the  crisis  w^hich,  in  1741,  resulted  in  the  division 
of  the  Synod,  and  in  1745  in  the  erection  of  the  Synod  of 
^New  York.  The  latter  body,  how^ever,  was  not  made  up  ex- 
clusively of  the  Old  and  New  England  element  in  the  church. 
The  Blairs,  Tennents,  Doctor  Finley,  and  others  of  the  Stotch 
and  Irish  and  their  descendants,  strongly  opposed  the  intol- 
erance of  the  high  church  party,  zealously  co-operated  with 
Whitefield,  and  blessed  God  for  the  signal  displays  of  His 
grace  in  the  revivals  which  attended  his  ministry.  That 
these  men  were  not,  as  their  opponents  represented  them,  fan- 
atics and  opposed  to  learning  in  the  ministry,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  soon  after  the  division  of  the  Synod,  they  took 
measures  to  found  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  providing  the  means  of  a  thorough  educa- 
tion to  candidates  for  the  sacred  office. 

The  unhappy  schism  of  1741  lasted  seventeen  years.  At 
the  expiration  of  this  period,  the  Synods  were  united  upon 
the  liberal  and  tolerant  principles  of  the  adopting  act  of  1*729, 
and  took  the  name  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia.    Had  these  principles  been  adhered  to,  the  Presbyte- 

*  See  Doct.  Miller's  Catechism  before  referred  to,  and  Tracy's  his- 
tory of  the  Great  Awakening,  Chapter  5th. 


90  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

rian  Church  in  these  United  States  would  have  remained  to 
this  day  a  united  body. 

Very  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  present  century, 
the  same  intolerant  spirit  exhibited  itself  by  violent  opposi- 
tion to  what  was  denominated  Hopkinsianism  or  New  Eng- 
land Divinity.  It  is  believed  few  comparatively  eithor  in  or 
out  of  New  England,  embraced  the  views  of  Hopkins  re- 
specting the  agency  of  God  in  the  production  of  moral  evil 
and  a  conditional  willino-ness  to  be  banished  from  Him  and 
made  eternally  miserable.  These,  however,  were  the  only  im- 
portant differences  between  his  theological  views  and  those 
of  Edwards,  Bellamy  and  other  leading  divines  of  New  Eng- 
land. The  chief  differences  between  the  doctrinal  views  of 
these  men  and  the  rigid  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
related  to  the  direct  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos- 
terity, the  extent  of  the  atonement,  and  the  nature  of  the  in- 
ability of  the  unregenerate  to  do  the  will  of  God,  as  stated 
at  the  close  of  the  3d  chapter  of  this  history.  The  ultra 
Presbyterians,  however,  resolved  that  departures  from  their 
interpretation  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
respecting  these  points,  should  not  be  tolerated.  And  their 
language  toward  their  brethren,  who  differed  from  them, 
sometimes  seemed  to  indicate  a  settled  determination  to  de- 
stroy their  reputation  and  usefulness.  Take  the  following 
extract  from  the  pastoral  letter  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia 
in  1816,  as  a  specimen. 

"  The  Synod  assembled  in  Lancaster  at  the  present  time, 
consists  of  a  greater  number  of  members  than  have  been 
convened  at  any  meeting  for  many  years  ;  and  from  the  free 
conversation  on  the  state  of  religion,  it  appears,  that  all  the 
Presbyteries  are  more  than  commonly  alive  to  the  impor- 
tance of  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,  and  of  resisting  the  introduction  of  A  rian,  Socin- 
ian,  Arminian  and  Hopkinsian  heresies,  which  are  some  of  the 
means  by  which  the  enemy  of  souls  would,  if  possible,  de- 
ceive the  very  elect.     May  the  time  never  come  when  our 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.         91 

ecclesiastical  courts  shall  determine  that  Hopkinsianism  and 
the  doctrines  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  are  the  same  thincr. 
or  that  men  are  less  exposed  now  than  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles  to  the  danger  of  perverting  the  right  ways  of  the 
Lord." — H.  Wood's  History  of  the  Freshyterian  Controversy 
page  46. 

The  intolerant  spirit  of  this  letter  was  not  confined  to  the 
body  which  issued  it.  It  prevailed  in  other  sections  of  the 
church.  In  the  city  of  New  York  it  was  no  less  clearly  de- 
veloped. As  the  respected  pastor  of  the  Brick  Church  in 
that  city,  and  other  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  were  known  to  agree  with  the  New  England  divines 
respecting  the  influence  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity,  the 
extent  of  the  atonement  and  the  nature  of  the  sinner's  ina- 
bility to  obey  the  Gospel,  great  eftbrts  were  made  by  those 
who  differed  from  them  to  impair  confidence  in  their  ortho- 
doxy. They  were  represented  as  embracing  and  preaching 
doctrines  highly  dishonorable  to  God,  and  dangerous  to  the 
souls  of  men. 

Discerning  men  then  clearly  foresaw  what  must  be  the  re- 
sult of  the  prevalence  of  this  intolerant  spirit  in  the  church. 
An  able  writer  of  that  period  remarked,  ''  Among  the  un- 
happy effects  likely  to  result  from  the  measures  recently 
taken,  we  may  well  consider  the  gloomy  prospects  which 
threaten  to  spread  over  the  whole  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians in  the  United  States.  How  terrible  and  shocking  the 
thought  that  Christian  brethren,  friends  and  neighbors,  united 
for  years  in  the  strictest  bonds  of  amity,  must  be  severed  under 
the  charge  of  heresy  !  Many  churches  must  be  torn  and  agi- 
tated with  fierce  disputes,  and  probably  rent  asunder ;  churches 
must  be  cast  out  of  Presbyteries,  and  perhaps  Presbyteries 
out  of  Synods.  And  what  appearance  would  the  Presby- 
terian Church  make,  torn  with  divisions,  distracted  by  dis- 
putes, rent  with  schisms,  palsied  by  animosities,  and  branded 
with  the  name  of  a  persecutor?" 

The  sad  catastrophe  which  the   author  of  this  quotation 


92  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

seemed  then  to  anticipate  as  near,  was  averted.  The  storm 
gradually  subsided,  and  some  of  the  most  strenuous  opposers 
of  what  liad  been  denominated  Hopkinsian  heresies  seem,  be- 
fore the  division  of  the  church,  to  have  been  fully  convinced 
that  they  are  not  fundamentally  at  variance  with  its  stand- 
ards. Of  this  number  was  the  venerable  Doctor  Greene. 
In  an  article,  published  in  "  the  Christian  Advocate  of  1831," 
when  speaking  of  the  "  Old  Hopkinsians,"  he  said,  "Their 
brotherhood  has  been  cordially  admitted,  although  a  dif- 
ference in  some  minor  points  of  doctrine  is  distinctly  recog- 
nized." In  their  branch  of  the  church,  they  have  now,  and 
have  had  ever  since  the  division  in  1837,  men  of  this  class, 
whose  soundness  in  the  faith  they  do  not  pretend  to  question. 
This  fact,  it  would  seem,  must  be  sufficient  to  convince  all 
unprejudiced  persons  that  the  differences  respecting  doctrine 
between  the  rigid  interpreters  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
those  who  entertained  the  views  of  Edwards,  Bellamy  and 
Hopkins,  could  not  have  been  the  chief  grounds  for  exscind- 
ing the  four  Synods.  Nor  could  the  errors,  specified  in  the 
Act  and  Testimony  and  the  Memorial  of  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  and  alleged  in  those  documents  to  be  alarmingly 
prevalent  in  the  church.  The  statement  of  true  doctrine  in 
opposition  to  those  errors,  presented  by  the  minority  of  the 
Assembly,  furnished  conclusive  evidence  that  the.  great  body 
of  those  whom  they  represented  utterly  repudiated  those 
errors,  and  held  them  in  equal  detestation  with  those  who 
bore  their  testimony  against  them.  That  the  strong  desire 
and  settled  determination  of  the  latter,  to  make  all  adopt  their 
interpretation  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  had  much  to  do 
with  the  division  of  the  church,  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  we 
are  persuaded  that  this  alone  would  not  have  brought  about 
the  catastrophe.  The  spirit  of  intolerance,  which  manifested 
itself  respecting  doctrine,  was  more  stiikingly  exhibited  in 
efforts  to  control  the  benevolent  operations  of  the  church. 
Of  this  fact  a  brief  history  of  the  controversy  between  the 


REAL  GROUNDS  OP  THE  EXCISION.         93 

advocates  of  Ecclesiastical  Boards  and  Voluntary  Societies 
for  spreading  the  Gospel,  will  funish  conclusive  proof. 

Previous  to  the  commencement  of  tlie  present  century,  the 
General  Assembly  appointed  a  Standing  Committee  of  Mis- 
sions. It  did  but  little,  however,  toward  accomphshing  the 
great  work  of  evangelizing  our  country,  which,  considering 
her  numbers,  intelligence,  and  wealth,  really  belonged  to  the 
Presbyterian  Branch  of  the  great  family  of  believei-s  in  the 
United  States.  For  the  purpose  of  prosecuting  the  work  of 
home  evangelization  with  more  vigor,  in  1816,  the  Assembly 
organized  a  Board  of  Missions.  After  it  had  been  in  operation 
eight  or  nine  years,  it  was  clearly  perceived  by  discerning 
and  pious  men  in  those  denominations  which  patronized  the 
A.  B.  C.  F.  Foreign  Missions,  that  something  on  a  greatly 
enlarged  scale  ought  to  be  done  for  supplying  the  destitute 
in  our  own  country  with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Ex- 
tensive correspondence  and  consultation  on  this  subject 
resulted  in  a  conviction  of  the  importance  of  organizing  a 
National  Society  for  the  prosecution  of  this  work.  This  plan 
was  warmly  recommended  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  writing  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Peters,  the  first  Secretary  of  the  A.  H.  Missionary 
Society,  respecting  its  organization,  the  Rev.  Drs.  Alexander 
and  Miller  employed  the  following  language : — 

"  Rev.  A^'D  Dear  Sir, — We  rejoice  to  hear  that  there  is 
a  plan  in  contemplation  for  forming  a  Domestic  Missionary 
Society,  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  has  heretofore  existed. 
We  have  long  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  subject  of  Domes- 
tic Missions  is  one  which  ought  to  interest  the  hearts,  and  to 
rouse  the  exertions  and  prayers  of  American  Christians  to 
an  extent  which  very  few  appear  to  appreciate.  Our  im- 
pression is,  that  unless  far  more  vigorous  measures  than  we 
have  hitherto  witnessed  shall  be  soon  adopted  for  sending 
the  blessed  Gospel  and  its  ordinances  to  the  widely  extended 
and  rapidly  increasing  new  settlements  of  our  country,  their 
active  and  enterprising  population  must,  at  no  great  distance 


94         REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

of  time,  be  abandoned  to  a  state  not  much  short  of  entire 
destitution  of  the  means  of  grace.  We  would  fain  hope  that 
no  Christian  who  loves  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  reflects 
on  the  value  of  immortal  souls ;  no  parent  who  remembers 
that  his  own  children,  or  children's  children,  may,  in  due  time, 
make  a  part  of  the  population  of  those  districts ;  no  patriot 
who  desires  to  see  the  virtue,  peace,  union,  and  happiness 
of  his  country  established,  can  possibly  be  indifferent  to  an 
object  of  such  immense  importance.  Our  prayer  is  that  the 
God  of  all  grace  may  rouse  the  spirit  of  the  nation  on  this 
subject ;  and  that  the  friends  of  religion  who  may  be  con- 
vened for  the  purpose  of  taking  it  into  consideration,  in  the 
month  of  May  next,  may  be  directed  to  the  adoption  of  a 
system  which  shall  serve  to  give  increasing  interest  and 
energy  of  proceeding  in  this  momentous  concern,  and  prove 
a  source  of  lasting  blessings  to  our  beloved  country." 

On  the  10th  of  May,  1826,  a  convention  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-six  delegates  from  the  Congregational,  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  and  Presbyterian  Churches,  was  held  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  to  take  into  consideration  the  propriety 
and  importance  of  forming  a  National  Society  for  prosecuting 
the  work  of  Domestic  Missions.  After  due  consultation, 
they  organized  the  A.  H.  Missionary  Society.  The  plan  of 
its  operations  was  to  sustain  ministers  in  good  standing  in 
their  Association,  Classis,  or  Presbytery,  in  feeble  churches 
belonging  to  either  of  those  denominations  with  which  they 
might  be  connected.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty-six 
delegates  in  the  Convention  which  organized  the  Society, 
seventy  were  from  the  Presbyterian  Church.  For  several 
years  it  is  believed  it  had  the  hearty  approval  of  a  large  pro- 
portion of  her  ministers,  and  the  most  intelhgent  of  her  lay 
members.  Upon  its  operations  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  bestowed  marked  tokens  of  His  approbation.  But 
with  the  leadino:  individuals  of  the  exclusive  and  intolerant 
portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  soon  became  an  object 
of  suspicion  and  dislike.     Hence,  in  1828,  only  two  years 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EiJ^CISION.  95 

after  the  organization  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  they  suc- 
ceeded in  procuring  a  re-organization  of  the  General  As- 
sembly's Board  of  Missions.  By  many  friends  of  Domestic 
Missions  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  this  measure  was 
looked  upon  with  painful  apprehensions.  Hithertc-  she  had 
done  very  little  to  furnish  the  destitute  population  of  our 
country  with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  A.  H.  M. 
Society  had  commenced  the  work  upon  a  plan  admirably 
adapted  for  its  safe  and  efficient  prosecution  by  the  three 
denominations  in  whose  behalf  it  acted.  God  had  crowned 
its  labors  with  signal  success.  In  these  circumstances  the 
attempted  enlargement  of  the  operations  of  the  Assembly's 
Board  of  Missions  was  looked  upon  by  many  ardent  friends 
of  Domestic  Missions  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  with 
great  anxiety.  They  were  persuaded  that  the  action  of  two 
separate  and  independent  general  organizations,  one  of  them 
to  a  great  extent,  and  the  other  exclusively  conducted  by 
Presbyterians,  for  the  same  object,  and  on  the  same  field, 
must  produce  embarrassment  to  both,  and  they  feared, 
would  greatly  retard  the  work  of  home  evangelization.  Sup- 
posing their  executive  officers  and  agents  to  be  governed  by 
the  kindest  feelings,  it  would  be  difficult  to  avoid  interference 
in  the  collection  of  funds  and  the  appointment  of  missionaries. 
For  the  purpose  oT  preventing  the  evils  which  it  was  appre- 
hended might  result  from  their  separate  action  on  the  same 
field,  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society, 
after  havina:  conferred  with  several  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly's  Board  of  Missions,  and  ascertained  that  they  were 
favorable  to  a  union  of  the  two  organizations,  labored  with 
great  zeal,  and  it  seems  to  us,  with  equal  prudence,  to 
secure  it.  A  due  regard  to  brevity  will  not  allow  us  to  lay 
before  our  readers  the  details  of  this  plan,  nor  the  measures 
which  the  Society  took  to  secure  its  adoption.  Those  who 
wish  to  gain  a  knowledge  of  them,  we  refer  to  pages  20G  and 
211  inclusive,  of  the  first  volume  of  the  "  Home  Missionary." 
A  candid  perusal  of  these  pages,  we  think,  cannot  fail  to 


96  REAL  jJROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

produce  the  conviction  that  the  plan  was  equitable  and  wise, 
and  that  its  authors  and  advocates  were  governed  by  a 
desire  to  promote  the  peace  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
secure  the  greatest  efficiency  in  prosecuting  the  work  of 
Domestic  Missions.  In  this  light  it  was  viewed  by  many 
intelligent  and  excellent  men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to 
whose  consideration  it  was  submitted.  The  lamented  Dr. 
John  H.  Rice,  of  Virginia,  said,  "  I  do  greatly  ap- 
prove of  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  A.  H.  M.  Society.  So  desirable  did  this  union  appear 
in  the  West,  that  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  in  1830,  took 
measures  to  secure  union  of  action  between  the  Assembly's 
Board  and  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  on  the  Western  field. 
Their  application  to  the  Board  for  this  object,  however, 
proved  unsuccessful.  .  On  the  20th  of  July  of  that  year,  they 
appointed  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Wilson,  D.D.,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs, 
John  Thompson,  James  Gallaher,  David  Root,  and  F.  Y. 
Vail,  a  Committee  to  correspond  with  the  Board  respecting 
union  of  effort  in  the  West,  with  the  A.  H.  M.  Society.  In 
their  communication  to  the  Board,  dated  July  26th,  1830, 
they  say,  "  That  boath  Boards  are  doing  good,  much  good, 
we  certainly  know.  We  certainly  ought  to  thank  God,  and 
take  courage  from  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  Mis- 
sionaries of  your  Board  have  increased  in  two  years  from 
thirty-one  to  nearly  two  hundred.  And  what  gratitude  is 
due  to  God  for  another  fact,  that  the  other  Society  has 
nearly  four  hundred  missionaries  in  the  field !  Nearly  six 
hundred  heralds  of  the  cross  aided  by  these  two  Institutions  !" 

After  having  stated  some  of  the  evils  which  had  arisen, 
and  others,  which,  from  their  separate  and  independent  action 
in  the  West,  they  feared  would  arise,  they  say, 

"  We  appreciate  the  claims  of  the  Assembly's  Board.  It, 
in  one  form  or  other,  is  the  oldest  Missionary  Board  in  Ame- 
rica. It  has  effected  much  good,  and  since  its  re-organiza- 
tion has  been  very  successful.  It  is  under  the  watch  and 
control  of  our  highest  judicatory.     It  can  elicit  and  command 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.         97 

funds,  which  other  societies  cannot  touch.  Shall  we  say, 
Dissolve  and  throw  your  funds  into  the  treasury  of  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society  ?  No,  this  we  cannot, 
dare  not  do." 

"  That  Society  commenced  when  the  Assembly's  Board  was 
not  eflfecting  much.  They  adopted  energetic  measures,  and 
in  a  very  few  years,  saw  happy  results.  They  are  still  in- 
creasing their  exertions  and  success.  And  we  cannot  doubt 
their  assertion,  that  they  have  access  to  funds  which  would 
never  come  into  the  Assembly's  Board.  Shall  we  say  to 
them,  Cease  to  exist ;  wind  up  your  accounts,  and  throw 
your  influence  into  the  other  Board  ?  This  we  cannot  do. 
We  do  not  know  that  God  would  succeed  such  a  measure. 
But  we  do  think  something  may  be  done.  And  we  have  yet 
to  learn  what  good  reason  can  be  urged  against  a  united 
operation  in  the  Western  country.  Cannot  the  two  Boards 
unite  in  some  men  in  the  West  whom  they  can  trust  as  faith- 
ful stewards  of  their  beneficence?" 

*'  We  feel  confident  that  this  communication  speaks  the 
sentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  brethren  in  the  West,  who 
have  sincerely  deliberated  on  this  matter ;  and  we  trust  we 
will  be  able  to  make  this  appear  in  a  future  communication, 
if  necessary." 

See  "  A  Brief  Answer  to  an  Official  Rej^ly  of  the  Board 
of  Missions  of  the  General  Assembly  to  Six  Letters  of  the 
Rev.  Absalom  Peters,  entitled,  '  A  Plea  for  Union  in  the 
West ;'  also  Mr.  Peters'  Reiyly  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  L.  Wil- 
son! s  four  propositions,  sustained  against  the  claims  of  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society.^' — -j^a^^es  27-29. 

The  Assembly's  Board,  after  having  considered  the  com- 
munication of  the  Committee  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati, 
passed  the  following  resolution,  viz. : — 

"  Resolved,  That  while  this  Board  have  the  highest  confi- 
dence in  the  integrity  and  purity  of  motives  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Cincinnati  Presbytery,  in  the  suggestions  which 
they  have  submitted  in  respect  to  a  united  agency  in  the 


98         REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

West  for  conducting  missionary  operations ;  and  while  they 
sincerely  regret  that  any  difficulties  and  collisions  should 
have  arisen  in  the  prosecution  of  thi^  great  and  important 
work,  they  are,  nevertheless,  constrained  by  a  sense  of  duty 
to  many  of  the  churches  and  Presbyteries  in  the  West,  which 
are  already  auxiliary  to  the  Board  on  the  plan  which  has 
been  approved  by  the  General  Assembly,  as  well  as  by  their 
own  earnest  desire  to  pursue  such  a  course  as  they  deem 
best  adapted  to  secure  the  permanent  peace  and  tranquillity 
of  the  churches,  to  express  their  full  conviction  of  the  entire 
inexpediency  of  attempting  to  organize  such  a  united  agency 
in  the  West." — See  'pamiMet  just  referred  to,  'page  29. 

This  resolution  was  followed  by  a  statement  of  the  reasons 
for  deeming  the  union  proposed  inexpedient,  which  is  too 
long  to  be  inserted  here. 

This  official  reply  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Board 
of  Missions  to  the  communication  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  led  to  the  publication  in  the  Cin- 
cinnati Journal,  in  the  months  of  Dec.  1830,  and  Jan.  1831, 
of  six  letters  from  the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Ame- 
rican Home  Missionary  Society,  entitled,  "A  Plea  for  Union 
in  the  West."  To  these  letters  the  Board  of  Missions  made 
an  official  reply,  dated  March  2d,  1831. 

These  documents  are  too  long  to  be  quoted  entire.  Those 
of  our  readers  who  are  desirous  of  gaining  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  this  controversy,  we  refer  to  these  documents. 

Only  a  few  months  after  Dr.  Wilson  signed  the  letter  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  of  which  he 
was  Chairman,  addressed  to  *'the  Secretary  of  the  Assem- 
bly's Board  of  Missions,"  urging  it  to  form  a  union  with  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society,  he  issued  a  pamphlet, 
in  which  he  attempted  to  support  the  following  propositions 
against  the  Society. 

"  1st.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  committed  the  manage- 
ment of  Christian  Missions  to  His  Church. 

**  2d.  The  Presbyterian  Church  being  one  great  family  of 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.         99 

the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  is,  by  her  form  of  government, 
organized  into  a  Christian  Missionary  Society. 

*'  3d.  The  American  Home  Missionary  Society  is  not  an 
ecclesiastical,  but  a  civil  Institution. 

*'  4th.  By  interference  and  importunity  she  disturbs  the 
peace,  and  injures  the  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church." 

At  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  the  ensuing  May, 
the  subject  of  union  between  its  Board  of  Missions  and  the 
American  Home  Missionary  Society  was  introduced.  After 
considerable  discussion  the  following  minute  was  adopted, 
viz. : — 

"  In  view  of  existing  evils  resulting  from  the  separate  ac- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Missions  of  the  General  Assembly  and 
the  American  Home  Missionary  Society,  the  General  Assem- 
bly recommend  to  the  Synods  of  Ohio,  Cincinnati,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  West  Tennessee,  Indiana,  and  IHinois,  and  the 
Presbyteries  connected  with  the  same,  to  correspond  with 
each  other,  and  endeavor  to  agree  upon  some  plan  of  con- 
ductmg  Domestic  Missions  in  the  Western  States,  and  report 
the  result  of  their  correspondence  to  the  next  General  As- 
sembly :  it  being  understood  that  the  brethren  in  the  West 
be  left  to  their  freedom  to  form  any  organization  which  in 
their  judgment  may~best  promote  the  cause  of  missions  in 
these  States ;  and  also  that  all  the  Synods  and  Presbyteries 
in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  may  be  embraced  in  this  cor- 
respondence, provided  they  desire  it." — Minutes  of  the  Assem- 
bly oflS3l,2Mge  189. 

Conformably  with  this  resolution  a  convention  from  twenty 
Presbyteries  met  in  Cincinnati,  in  the  month  of  November 
next  ensuing.  A  majority  of  the  convention  decided  against 
a  united  agency  of  Home  Missions  for  the  West,  and  in  favor 
of  "  the  General  Assembly's  mode  of  conducting  missions." 
Of  this  decision  the  minority  complained.  They  published 
"  A  report  to  the  Presbyteries  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississip- 
pi ; "  likewise  calling  "  the  attention  of  the  General  Assembly 


100  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

of  the  Presbyterian  Cluircli  to  some  facts  connected  with  the 
business  of  the  said  Convention."  In  their  report  they  state 
that  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  (not  named  in  the  resolution  of 
the  Assembly)  had  "a  controlling  influence  in  the  Conven- 
tion." They  say,  *'  The  votes  of  that  Synod  went  together, 
and  carried  every  question  which  they  were  pleased  to  ap- 
prove ;  and  particularly  in  regard  to  several  efforts  at  com- 
promise, that  Synod  determined  their  rejection,  whereas  a 
decided  majority  of  votes  from  the  suffering  Synods  were  in 
their  favor."  They  also  complained  that  *' the  oflScial  influ- 
ence of  the  Board  of  Missions  "  was  employed  "  to  prevent 
union  in  the  West,"  whereas  the  compromise  of  the  previous 
Assembly  left  the  brethren  in  that  region  to  their  own  free- 
dom respecting  it. 

This  determined  opposition  to  the  A.  H.  M.  Society 
hastened  the  general  controversy  respecting  the  most  eligible 
method  of  conducting  the  various  benevolent  operations  of 
the  church.  Most  who  were  in  favor  of  conducting  them  by 
boards,  under  the  direct  and  exclusive  control  of  the  judica- 
tories of  the  Church,  especially  of  the  General  Assembly, 
became  more  decided  and  zealous  in  the  support  of  their  pe- 
culiar policy,  and  increasingly  hostile  to  the  operations  within 
the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  of  societies  organized 
and  conducted  upon  the  voluntary  principle.  "  The  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society"  had  been  organized  a  short  time 
before,  "  within  the  bounds  of  the  Svnod  of  Pittsburjx,  under 
the  auspices  of  that  body  ;  having  as  its  formal  patrons,  all 
the  Presbyteries  composing  that  Synod,  together  with  some 
Presbyteries  belonging  to  other  Synods."  This,  the  most 
zealous  and  bigoted  friends  of  ecclesiastical  organizations, 
wished  to  place  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly. 
Some,  however,  who  in  the  main  agreed  with  them,  were  not 
at  that  time  in  favor  of  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  under 
the  control  of  that  body.  Tlie  A.  B.  C.  F.  Missions  had 
been  engaged  in  this  work  about  twenty  years,  had  conduct- 
ed it  with  great  wisdom  and  efflciency,  and  was  firmly  fixed 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        101 

in  the  affections  of  many  friends  of  missions  in  tlie  Presbyte- 
rian Churcho  Many  who  were  in  favor  of  the  Boards  for 
promoting  other  objects  of  Christian  benevolence  then  under 
the  control  of  the  Assembly,  did  not  wish  the  patronage 
which  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  Missions,  received  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  withdrawn.  As  ample  opportunity  was  afford- 
ed by  this  Board  and  the  Society,  under  the  care  of  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburg,  to  the  friends  of  missions  to  the  heathen 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  prosecute  the  work  in  accord- 
ance with  their  own  preferences,  they  did  not  deem  a  Board 
for  this  purpose  under  the  care  of  the  Assembly,  desirable. 
These  were  the  views  of  the  venerable  Doct.  Miller,  late  Pro- 
fessor in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton.  In  his  fifth 
letter  to  Presbyterians,  published  in  1833,  after  having  ex- 
pressed his  approbation  of  "  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary 
Society,"  he  remarked,  "  The  probability  is,  that  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society  will  not  be  placed  under  the 
direction  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  attempt  any  resort  to 
that  body  for  patronage.  It  would  be  unwise  and  unhappy 
to  introduce,  into  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church, 
another  subject  of  party  jealousy  and  party  contention.  Such 
portions  of  the  Church  that  feel  friendly  to  its  existence,  and 
willing  to  make  efforts  for  its  support,  will,  of  course,  yield  it 
their  patronage,  without  impeaching  the  motives  of  those 
who  may  choose  to  act  otherwi^^e,  and  without  the  least  un- 
friendly feeling  towards  other  institutions." 

Doct.  Miller's  views  on  this  subject,  and  those  of  many 
others,  who  then  agreed  with  him,  were  soon  after  greatly 
changed.  The  advocates  for  conducting  all  the  benevolent 
operations  of  tlie  Church  by  Boards  under  ecclesiastical  su- 
pervision, increased  in  number,  and  their  policy  became  more 
and  more  exclusive  and  intolerant.  Hence  those  who  were 
from  principle  in  favor  of  Voluntary  Societies,  were  laid  un- 
der the  necessity  either  of  abandoning  their  conscientious 
preferences  or  of  defending  them.  A  sense  of  duty  con- 
strained them  to  adopt  the  latter  course.     In  order  to  give  a 


102  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

faitliful  history  of  this  controversy,  however,  and  make  our 
readers  acquainted  with  the  real  grounds  of  the  passage  of 
those  Acts  by  the  Assembly  of  1837,  which  rent  the  Church 
asunder,  some  other  extraordinary  measures  of  the  ultra 
party  must  be  noticed. 

For  several  years  previous,  that  of  1835  only  excepted, 
they  had  been  in  the  minority.  At  the  close  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  that  year,  some  of  the  most  rigid  and  intolerant  among 
them,  met  for  consultation.  They  drew  up  '*  The  Act  and 
Testimony,"  which  was  "  addressed  to  the  Ministers,  Elders, 
and  private  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  signed  by  thirty-seven  Ministers  and 
twenty-seven  Elders." 

This  document  is  too  long  to  be  inserted  entire  upon  these 
pages.  A  few  extracts  will  be  given,  by  which  the  reader 
may  judge  for  himself  of  its  spirit,  tendency  and  design  : 

"  Brethren,  beloved  in  the  Lord : — In  the  solemn  crisis, 
to  which  our  Church  has  arrived,  we  are  constrained  to  ap- 
peal to  you  in  relation  to  the  alarming  errors  which  have 
hitherto  been  connived  at,  and  now  at  length  have  been  coun- 
tenanced and  sustained  by  the  acts  of  the  supreme  judicatory 
of  our  Church. 

*'  Constituting  as  we  do,  a  portion  of  yourselves,  and  deep- 
ly concerned,  as  every  portion  of  the  system  must  be,  in  all 
that  affects  the  body  itself,  we  earnestly  address  ourselves  to 
you  in  the  full  belief,  that  the  dissolution  of  our  Church, 
or,  w^hat  is  worse,  its  corruption  in  all  that  once  distinguish- 
ed its  peculiar  testimony,  can,  under  God,  be  prevented  only 
by  you. 

"  From  the  highest  judicatory  of  our  Church,  we  have  for 
several  years  in  succession  sought  the  redress  of  our  griev- 
ances, and  have  not  only  sought  in  vain,  but  with  an  aggra- 
vation of  the  evils  of  which  we  have  complained.  Whither, 
then,  can  we  look  for  relief  but  first  to  Him,  who  is  made 
Head  over  all  things,  to  the  Church,  which  is  His  body,  and 
then  to  you,  as  constituting  a  part  of  that  body,  and  as  in- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.       103 

struments  in  His  hand  to  deliver  the  Church  from  the  op- 
pression, whicli  she  sorely  feels  ? 

"  In  the  presence  of  that  Redemer,  by  whom  Paul  adjures 
us,  we  avow  our  fixed  adherence  to  those  standards  of  doc- 
trine and  order,  in  their  obvious  and  intended  sense,  which 
we  have  heretofore  subscribed  under  circumstances  the  most 
impressive.  In  the  same  spirit  we  do  therefore  solemnly  ac- 
quit ourselves  in  the  sight  of  God,  of  all  responsibility  arising 
from  the  existence  of  those  divisions  and  disorders  in  our 
Church,  which  spring  from  a  disregard  of  assumed  obliga- 
tions, a  departure  from  doctrines  deliberately  professed,  and 
a  subversion  of  forms  pubhcly  and  repeatedly  approved.  By 
the  same  high  authority,  and  under  the  same  weighty  sanc- 
tions, we  do  avow  our  fixed  purpose  to  strive  for  the  resto- 
ration of  purity,  peace,  and  scriptural  order  to  our  Church ; 
and  endeavor  to  exclude  from  her  communion  those  who  dis- 
turb her  peace,  corrupt  her  testimony,  and  subvert  her 
established  forms." 

The  authors  of  this  extraordinary  document,  after  having 
thus  criminated  a  large  portion  of  their  brethren  in  good 
standing  in  the  church,  and  avowed  their  purpose  to  do  their 
utmost  to  thrust  them  out  of  its  communion,  present  a  list 
of  truly  formidable  errors  and  grievous  departures  from  its 
discipline  and  order  which  they  also  lay  to  their  charge,  and 
then  close  with  eight  recommendations  to  the  churches,  the 
last  of  which  is  in  these  words,  viz. : — 

*'  We  do  earnestly  recommend  that  on  the  second  Thurs- 
day of  May,  1835,  a  convention  be  held  in  the  city  of  Pitts- 
burg, to  be  composed  of  two  delegates,  a  minister,  and  a 
ruling  elder,  from  each  Presbytery,  or  from  the  minority  of 
any  Presbytery  who  may  concur  in  the  sentiments  of  this 
Act  and  Testimony,  to  deliberate  and  consult  on  the  present 
state  of  our  church,  and  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  b? 
best  suited  to  restore  her  prostrated  standards." 

The  influence  of  the  Act  and  Testimony  in  bringing  about 
the  division  of  the  church,  gives  it  an  importance  far  beyonci 


104  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

its  intrinsic  merits.  Respecting  the  controversy  in  regard  to 
ecclesiastical  Boards  and  voluntary  societies,  it  is  silent.  Not, 
however,  for  lack  of  zeal  on  the  part  of  its  authors  in  favor  of 
the  former,  and  for  the  utter  exclusion  of  the  latter,  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  as  subsequent  events  make  undeniably 
evident.  They  doubtless  felt  that  the  work  of  revolution, 
(reformation  as  they  call  it),  upon  which  they  had  entered 
with  such  uncompromising  pertinacity,  could  be  most  effect- 
ually promoted  by  ringing  the  alarm-bell  of  heresy  and  gross 
departures  from  Presbyterian  discipline  and  church-order. 
Should  they  succeed  in  creating  a  general  panic  on  these 
subjects,  the  entire  work  at  which  they  aimed  could  easily  be 
accomplished.  That  this  is  not  an  erroneous  and  uncharitable 
statement  of  their  policy  and  aims,  we  trust,  will  be  made 
undeniably  evident  when  we  come  to  notice  the  results  of 
**  the  Act  and  Testimony"  in  the  Pittsburg  Convention  and 
the  Assembly,  which  commenced  its  sessions  in  that  city  the 
week  next  succeeding  that  in  which  the  Convention  met. 

Those  on  whom  this  document  was  designed  to  cast  odi- 
um, were  grieved  and  alarmed.  They  deeply  felt  that  with 
men  not  well-informed  in  regard  to  their  real  sentiments  and 
aims,  it  was  calculated  to  make  them  objects  of  unfounded 
and  cruel  suspicion.  Existing  evils  in  the  church,  which  they 
had  hoped  prudence,  forbearance,  and  Christian  love  would 
greatly  lessen,  if  not  remove,  by  the  sending  forth  of  this 
document  they  foresaw  must  be  increased,  and  that  there 
were  just  grounds  to  apprehend  it  would  result  in  the  divis- 
ion of  the  church.  Men  of  moderation  and  pacific  spirit  in 
the  party  to  which  its  authors  belonged  mourned  over  and 
condemned  it.  They  regarded  it  as  unauthorized  by  the 
actual  state  of  things  in  the  church,  as  revolutionary  in  its 
character,  and  schismatic  in  its  tendency.  The  editor  of  the 
Western  Luminary  accompanied  its  publication  with  the  re- 
mark, "  We  think  it  due  to  our  brethren  of  the  ministry  and 
eldership  of  this  region  to  state,  that  so  far  as  our  acquaint- 
ance extends,  we  know  of  no  one  who  holds  any  of  the  doc- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.       105 

trinal  views,  which  are  justly  designated  as  errors  in  the  Act 
and  Testimony." 

Our  views  of  the  real  character  and  design  of  this  docu- 
ment are  clearly  presented  in  the  following  extracts  from  a 
review  of  it,  in  *'  the  Biblical  Repertory,"  whose  conductors 
cannot  be  supposed  in  the  publication  of  it,  to  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  prejudice. 

*'  It  would  seem  to  be  a  very  obvious  principle,  that  any 
individual  member  of  a  body  has  a  right  to  address  his  fellow- 
members  on  subjects  affecting  their  common  interests.  If  he 
thinks  that  errors  and  disorders  are  gaining  ground  among 
them,  it  is  more  than  a  right,  it  is  a  duty  for  him  to  say  so, 
provided  he  has  any  hope  of  making  his  voice  effectually 
heard.  If  such  be  the  case  with  an  individual,  it  is  equally 
obvious  that  he  may  induce  as  many  as  he  can,  to  join  him 
in  his  warnings  and  counsels,  that  they  may  come  with  the 
weight  due  to  numbers  acting  in  concert.  Had  the  meeting 
in  Philadelphia  therefore  been  contented  to  send  forth  their 
solemn  testimony  against  error  and  disorder,  and  their  earnest 
exhortation  to  increased  fidelity  to  God  and  his  Truth,  we  are 
sure  none  could  reasonably  object.  Their  declaration  would 
have  been  received  with  all  the  respect  due  to  its  intrinsic 
excellence,  and  to  the  source  whence  it  proceeded.  But 
when  it  is  propose'H  to  *  number  the  people ;'  to  request  and 
urge  the  signing  of  this  testimony  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy, 
then  its  whole  nature  and  design  is  at  once  altered.  What 
was  the  exercise  of  an  undoubted  right  becomes  an  unau- 
thorized assumption.  What  was  before  highly  useful,  or  at 
least  harmless,  becomes  fraught  with  injustice,  discord  and 
division.  The  very  design  of  the  effort  is  to  make  neutrahty 
impossible." 

**  Now  we  say,  no  man,  and  no  set  of  men,  have  the  right 
thus  to  necessitate  others  of  their  own  body  to  adopt  their 
sentiments  auv*.  recommendations,  or  be  considered  as  the 
abettors  of  errorists  and  anarchists.  Here  is  one  of  the 
most  serious  evils  of  the  whole  plan.     It  makes  one  a  heretic 


106       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

or  an  abettor  of  heresy,  not  for  an  error  in  doctrine,  not  for 
unfaithfulness  in  disciphne,  but  because  he  may  be  unable  to 
adopt  an  extended  document  as  expressing  his  own  opinions 
on  a  multitude  of  facts,  doctrines  and  practical  counsels.  This 
is  an  assumption  which  ought  not  to  be  allowed.  It  is  an 
act  of  gross  injustice  to  multitudes  of  our  soundest  and  best 
men ;  it  is  the  most  effectual  means  of  splitting  the  church 
into  mere  fragments,  and  of  alienating  from  each  other  men 
who  agree  in  doctrine,  in  views  of  order  and  discipline,  and 
who  differ  in  nothing,  perhaps,  but  in  opinion  as  to  the  wis- 
dom of  introducing  this  new  League  and  Covenant." 

"  Had  the  ingenuity  of  man  been  taxed  for  a  plan 

to  divide  and  weaken  the  friends  of  truth  and  order  in  our 
church,  we  question  whether  a  happier  or  more  effectual  ex- 
pedient could  have  been  devised. 

"  Is  it  then  true  that  the  highest  judicatory  of 

our  church  has  *  countenanced  and  sustained '  the  doctrine 
that  we  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  sin  of  Adam  than  with 
the  sins  of  any  other  parent — that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
original  sin, — that  man's  regeneration  is  his  own  act — that 
Christ's  sufferings  are  not  truly  and  properly  vicarious  ? 
How  serious  the  responsibility  of  announcing  to  the  world 
that  such  is  the  case !  How  clear  and  decisive  should  be 
the  evidence  of  the  fact,  before  the  annunciation  was  made 
and  ratified  by  the  signatures  of  such  a  number  of  our  best 
men !  Surely  something  more  than  mere  inference  from  acts 
of  doubtful  import,  should  be  here  required.  .  .  .  We  have 
not  the  least  idea  that  one  tenth  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  would  deliberately  countenance  and 
sustain  the  errors  specified." 

When  speaking  of  the  resolutions  contained  in  the  memo- 
rial presented  to  the  Assembly,  condemning  these  errors,  the 
reviewers  say,  *'  Instead  of  wondering  that  a  majority  of  the 
Assembly  did  not  vote  for  them,  we  Avonder  that  any  con- 
siderable number  of  voices  were  raised  in  their  favor,  so 
various  are  the  errors  they  embrace,  and  so  different  in  de- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        107 

gree ;  some  of  tliem  serious  heresies,  and  others  opinions  (at 
least  as  we  understand  tlie  resohitions)  which  were  held  and 
tolerated  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  in  our  own  church  from 
its  very  first  organization.  Is  it  to  be  expected  that  at  this 
time  of  the  day,  the  Assembly  would  condemn  all  who  do 
not  hold  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement?" 

Here  is  a  concession,  which  ought  not  to  be  passed  over 
unnoticed.  It  is  a  full  admission  of  the  truth  of  all  that  has 
been  stated  on  previous  pages  of  this  narrative,  concerning 
the  adopting  act  of  1*729  and  the  tolerant  principles  of 
American  Presbyterianism  in  the  early  periods  of  its  history. 
Then,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  reviewers,  diversity 
of  views  on  some  points  of  doctrine,  was  tolerated,  among 
which,  was  the  doctrine  of  general  atonement.  Provided  men 
received  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  they  were  accouted  sound 
Presbyterians,  though  they  differed  respecting  some  points 
of  minor  importance  from  their  brethren,  who  received  it  in 
all  its  details  according  to  the  most  rigid  interpretation  of 
its  language.     Subsequently  the  reviewers  say, 

*'  We  cannot  but  regard,  therefore,  the  recommendation  of 
this  document,  that  churches  and  ministers  consider  certain 
acts  of  the  Assembly  unconstitutional,  as  a  recommendation 
to  them  to  renounce  their  allegiance  to  the  Church,  and  to 
disregard  their  promises  of  obedience." 

"  Division,  then,  is  the  end  to  which  this  enterprise  leads, 
and  to  which  we  doubt  not  it  aims."  In  a  note,  however, 
the  reviewers  say,  "  Since  writing  the  above,  we  see  that  this 
intention  is  denied  in  the  'Presbyterian.'  We  have  heard 
other  signers  of  the  Act  and  Testimony,  however,  very  dis- 
tinctly avow  their  desire  to  effect  a  division  of  the  Church." 

Of  the  recommendations  of  the  Act  and  Testimony,  they 
speak  in  terms  of  decided  disapprobation.  They  say,  "  The 
point  now  before  us,  however,  is  the  true  nature  of  its  re- 
commendations. We  say  they  are  extra- constitutional  and 
revolutionary,  and  should  be  opposed  by  all  those  who  do 


108  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

not  believe  that  the  crisis  demands  the  dissolution  of  the 

Church We  do  not  believe   that  any  such   crisis 

exists." — Copied  from  the  New  York  Obstrcer  of  Novemher 
15th,  1834. 

The  limits  to  which  we  are  confined,  forbid  further  ex- 
tracts from  this  document.  Those  which  we  have  made,  are 
quite  sufficient  to  enable  the  reader  to  form  an  accurate 
judgment  of  its  spirit  and  design.  The  Princeton  reviewers 
cannot  be  supposed  to  have  looked  upon  it  with  too  unfavor- 
able an  eye.  The  say,  it  is  *'  fraught  with  injustice,  discord 
and  division; — its  recommendations  are  extra- constitutional 
and  revolutionary; — division  is  its  tendency  and  aim." 

How  surprising  and  deeply  to  be  regretted  is  it  that  the 
Princeton  fathers  and  brethren,  and  many  others,  who,  when 
the  Act  and  Testimony  first  appeared,  agreed  with  them  re- 
specting its  real  character  and  design,  soon  after  aided  in 
carrying  out  its  revolutionary  and  divisive  measures ! 

Having  shown  in  what  light  the  Act  and  Testimony  was 
viewed  by  the  best  men  of  the  party  to  which  its  author  and 
signers  belonged,  it  may  be  well  to  notice  the  opinions 
.  which  were  formed  of  it  by  other  denominations.  How  the 
Congregationalists  of  New  England  regarded  it,  is  sufficiently 
manifest  from  the  following  extracts  from  a  review  of  it  in 
the  'Zth  vol.  of  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,  published 
in  New  Haven,  Con. 

**  What  then  is  this  Act  and  Testimony  ?  It  is  a  new 
*  Confession  of  Faith,'  or  a  recently  invented  test  of  orthodoxy, 
agreed  upon,  subscribed,  and  published,  by  thirty- seven 
ministers,  and  tw  ntj^-seven  ruling  elders  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  at  the  close  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  in  Phila- 
delphia. .  .  .  !  The  introduction  does  not  abound  in  the 
qualities  of  conciliation,  which  some  masters  of  rhetoric  tell 
lis,  ought  to  be  prominent  in  this  part  of  a  discourse.  It  is 
more  in  keeping  with  the  habits  of  a  western  liuntsman ;  for 
it  takes  the  beast  by  the  horns,  at  tlie  very  outset  of  the  bat- 
tle.    Or,  to  pass  by  one  bold  stride  from  the  wilderness  to 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.       109 

the  ocean,  these  *  Act  and  Testimony'  brethren  are  no  sooner 
embarked,  than  they  nail  the  flag  of  nuUification  to  the  mast. 
It  cannot  for  a  moment  be  admitted  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church'  in  this  country,  is  in  a  condition  to  merit  the  sweep- 
ing denunciation  Avhich  breathes,  or  rather  thunders,  in  the 
first  'sentence  of  this  manifesto." 

The  reviewers  having  stated  some  of  the  principles  of 
Presbyterian  Church  government,  say, 

"  Let  the  *  Act  and  Testimony,'  then,  be  arraigned  at  the 
bar  of  these  principles,  and  have  a  fair  trial,  and  receive  a 
righteous  sentence.  The  subscribers  of  this  document  beirin 
by  a  practical  renunciation  of  their  whole  system;  and  if 
their  solemn  manifesto  proves  anything,  it  proves  that, 
*  quoad  hoc,'  they  are  not  Presbyterians.  They  have  erected 
a  new  tribunal,  unknown  to  their  standards;  and  before  this 
voluntary  and  irresponsible  association,  they  arraign  all  de- 
linquents, whether  the  peccant  General  Assembly,  or  minis- 
ters suspected  of  heresy.  And  Avho  constitute  this  new 
Presbyterial  court  ?  The  answer  may  be  given  in  their  own 
words, — '  The  ministers,  elders,  and  private  members  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States.  .  .  .'  To  this 
new  tribunal  they  appeal,  from  *  the  supreme  judicatory'  of 
their  Church.  And  yet  these  brethren  love  '  the  good  old 
way,'  and  dread  Innovation  !  And  this  ground  they  have 
assumed,  deliberately  and  systematically,  throughout  this 
whole  document.  In  the  face  of  the  constitution  of  their 
Church,  they  have  called  a  convention  to  be  held  in  Pitts- 
burg, on  the  second  Thursday  in  May,  1835." 

"The  subscribers  of  this  document  avow  their  'fixed'  ad- 
herence to  their  'standards'  of  ecclesiastical  'order ;'  Avhile 
the  very  document  in  which  they  make  this  profession,  is, 
both  in  essence  and  action,  at  war  with  the  whole  system. 
They  acquit  themselves  of  all  responsibility,  for  the  'subver- 
sion of  FORMS  publicly  and  repeatedly  approved;'  while 
they  are  subverting  those  very  'forms'  themselves.  They 
tell  us  that  they  are  laboring  for  the  restoration  of  *  scriptu- 


110      REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

ral  order '  to  the  Cluircli ;  and  yet  they  attempt  that  refor- 
mation by  means  which  contravene  their  own  notions  of  ec- 
clesiastical organization.  They  intend,  if  possible,  to  exclude 
from  the  Church,  those  who  '  subvert  her  established  forms  ;* 
and  yet,  in  compassing  this  end,  they  themselves  perpetrate 
the  act  of  subversion.  They  believe  that  the  form  of  govern- 
ment of  the  Fresbyterivn  Church^  accords  with  the  will  of 
God,  and  deprecate  everything  that  '  changes  its  essential 
charcater  ;'  while,  in  their  practice,  they  are  fast  verging  to 
Congregationalism — a  form  of  government  at  which  they 
almost  instinctively  shudder.  They  do  '  love  the  constitu- 
tion '  of  their  Church,  '  in  word,'  if  not  *  in  deed  ;'  they  *  ven- 
erate its  peculiarities/  because  they  exhibit  the  rules  by 
which  God  intends  the  affairs  of  His  Church  on  earth  to  be 
conducted;  but,  as  the  'peculiarities'  of  this  organization, 
embracing  no  other  tribunals,  advisory  or  compulsive,  than 
Church-Sessions,  Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  General  Assem- 
bly, do  not  quite  answer  their  revolutionary  movements,  they 
intend  to  recrulate  the  afifairs  of  the  Church,  at  least  till 
things  assume  a  better  posture,  by  another  system." 

This  notice  of  the  ''Act  and  Testimony"  is  not  a  digres- 
sion from  the  history  of  the  controversy  respecting  voluntay 
societies  and  ecclesiastical  boards.  This  document  had  an 
important  influence  upon  the  action  of  the  Pittsburg  Con- 
vention and  of  succeeding  assemblies,  concerning  it. 

ASSEMBLY    OF    1835. 

This  Assembly  met  in  Pittsburg.  It  was  preceded  by 
the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  called  by  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  "  Act  and  Testimony."  By  the  untiring  exer- 
tions of  the  signers  of  this  document  and  the  aid  of  the  Con- 
vention, they  succeeded  in  securing  a  majority  favorable  to 
their  views  in  the  Assembly,  and  in  controlling  its  proceed- 
ings. The  Convention  prepared  a  memorial  to  be  presented 
to  it,  which  is  too  long  to  be  inserted  entire.     The  substance 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        Ill 

of  tlic  grievances  of  wliicli  they  complain  is  contained  in  the 
following  specifications,  viz. :  — 

1.  That  the  last  General  Assembly  had  denied  to  Presby- 
teries the  right  of  re-examining  men,  applying  to  them  for 
admission  from  other  Presbvterics  and  foreimi  bodies. 

2.  That  the  Assembly  had  denied  the  right  of  Presbyte- 
ries to  censure  "a  printed  pubhcation,  irrespective  of  its  au- 
thor." 

3.  That  the  Assembly  had  sanctioned  the  erection  "of 
Presbyteries  and  Synods  upon  the  principle  of  elective  affin- 
ity."  ' 

4.  That  the  Assembly  allowed  the  American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society  to  operate  within  the  bounds  of  the  Presby- 
rian  Church. 

5.  That  the  Church  did  not  take  the  exclusive  control  of 
the  education  of  her  c  mdidates  for  the  ministry,  but  suffered 
it  to  be  done  in  part  by  a  voluntary  society,  not  responsible 
to  her  judicatories. 

6.  That  "the  Plan  of  Union,"  formed  in  1801,  between 
the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  and  the  General  As- 
sembly, was  fraught  with  evil  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

7.  That  "  the  Plan  of  Union  and  Correspondence  with  the 
Congregational  associations  of  New  England  and  with  other 
Churches"  was  adverse  to  her  interests. 

8.  That  the  General  Assembly  had  not  been  sufficiently 
zealous  in  guarding  the  doctrinal  purity  of  the  Church. 

The  committee  of  the  Assembly  to  whom  the  memorial 
containing  these  complaints  was  referred,  brought  in  a  report 
decidedly  favorable  to  the  memorialists.  The  Assembly  de- 
cided that  "  it  is  the  right  of  every  Presbytery  to  be  entirely 
satisfied  of  the  soundness  in  the  faith  of  those  ministers  who 
apply  to  be  admitted  into  the  Presbytery  as  members ; 
that  it  is  the  right  of  any  judicatory  of  our  Church  to  take  up, 
and,  if  it  see  cause,  to  bear  testimony  against  any  printed 
publication  which  may  be  circulating  within  its  bounds,  and 
which,  in  the  judgment  of  that  judicatory,  may  be  adapt(  d 


112        REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

to  inculcate  pernicious  errors,  whether  the  author  be  living 
or  dead ;  that  the  erection  of  church  courts,  and  especially 
of  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  on  the  principle  of  *  elective 
affinity,'  is  contrary  both  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  our  con- 
stitution, and  opens  a  wide  door  for  mischiefs  and  abuses  of 
the  most  serious  kind."  They  likewise  ordered  the  Synod 
of  Delaware  to  be  dissolved  at  and  after  the  meeting  of  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  ensuing  October,  and  "  an- 
nexed to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia."  This  order,  if  exe- 
cuted, would  throw  the  Assembly's  second  Presbytery  back 
into  that  Synod. 

The  Assembly  refused  to  carry  out  the  policy  of  the  Con- 
vention respecting  voluntary  societies.  They  said,  "  it  is  not 
expedient  to  attempt  to  prohibit,  within  our  bounds,  the 
operation  of  the  ''Home  Missionary  Society,'  or  of  the  'Pres- 
byterian Education  Society,'  or  any  other  voluntary  associa- 
tion not  subject  to  our  control." 

They  recommended  that  no  more  churches  be  formed  in 
the  Presbyterian  connection  under  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801, 
but  were  not  in  favor  either  of  terminating  or  modifying 
"  the  plan  of  correspondence  with  the  associations  of  Con- 
gregational brethren  in  Nevf  England." 

The  Assembly  also  bore  its  testimony  against  **  Pelagian  or 
Arminian  errors"  and  enjoined  upon  all  its  "Presbyteries  and 
Synods  to  exercise  the  utmost  vigilance  in  guarding  against 
the  introduction  and  publication  of  such  pestiferous  errors.'* 
—  See  Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  fages  27-30. 

An  overture,  *'  relative  to  Foreign  Missions,"  was  likewise 
presented  to  the  Assembly.  The  Committee  to  whom  it  was- 
referred,  '*  reported,"  and  their  report  was  accepted  and 
adopted,  and  is  as  follows,  viz. : — 

"  The  Committee  on  the  papers  submitted  to  them  in  re- 
lation to  the  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  recommended  the 
adoption  of  the  following  lesolutions,  viz.. : — 

"  I.  Tliat  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  af  this  General  Assem- 
bly that  the  Presbyterian  Church  owes  it  a.s  a  sacred  duty  t€> 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.       113 

her  glorified  Head,  to  yield  a  far  more  exemplary  obedience, 
and  that  in  her  distinctive  character  as  a  church,  to  the  com- 
mand, which  He  gave  at  his  ascension  into  heaven, — *  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.'  It 
is  believed  to  be  amono;  the  causes  of  the  frowns  of  the  jxreat 
Head  of  the  Church,  which  are  now  resting  upon  our  beloved 
Zion,  in  the  declension  of  vital  piety,  and  the  disorders  and  di- 
visions which  distract  us,  that  we  have  done  so  little, — compa- 
ratively nothing — in  our  distinctive  character  as  a  Church  of 
Christ,  to  send  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen,  the  Jews,  and  the 
Mohammedans.  It  is  regarded  as  of  vital  importance  to  the  wel- 
fare of  our  church,  that  Foreign  as  well  as  Domestic  Missions 
should  be  more  zealously  prosecuted,  and  more  liberally  pa- 
tronized ;  and  that  as  a  nucleus  of  Foreign  Missionary  ef- 
fort and  operation,  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
should  receive  the  countenance,  as  it  appears  to  us  to  merit 
the  confidence,  of  those  who  cherish  an  attachment  to  the 
doctrines  and  order  of  the  church  to  which  we  belontj. 

*'  II.  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  confer 
•with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the 
supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  now 
under  the  direction  of  that  Synod,  to  ascertain  the  terms  on 
which  such  transfer  can  be  made,  to  devise  and  digest  a  plan 
of  conducting  ^'oreign  Missions  under  the  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  report 
the  whole  to  the  next  General  Assembly." — Minutes  of  the 
Assembly,  page  31. 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  last  day  of  the  sessions  of  the 
Assembly,  when,  as  has  since  been  ascertained,  less  than  one 
third  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly  were  present,  this 
Committee  made  their  report,  and  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted,  viz, : — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  appointed  to  confer  with 
the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the 
supervision  of  the  Foreign  Western  Missionary  Society  to  the 
General  Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they  shall  approve  of 


114  KKAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same  witli  the  said 
Synod,  and  report  the  same  to  the  next  General  Assembly." 
— Minutes  of  the  Assembly,  page  33. 

The  next  documentary  notice  which  we  have  of  this 
transaction,  is  contained  in  the  published  account  of  the 
Meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  at  Meadville,  October, 
1835.     It  is  as  follows  : — 

"  A  committee,  appointed  for  that  purpose  by  the  last  Ge- 
neral Assembly,  submitted  the  following 
Terms  of  agreement  between    the    Committee  of  the   General 
Assembly  and  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  in  reference  to  the 
transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

"  1.  The  General  Assembly  will  assume  the  supervision  and 
control  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  from  and 
after  the  next  annual  meeting  of  said  Assembly,  and  will 
thereafter  superintend  and  conduct,  by  its  own  proper  autho- 
rity, the  work  of  foreign  missions  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
by  a  board  especially  appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  directly 
amenable  to  said  Assembly.  And  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg 
does  hereby  transfer  to  that  bod}^  all  its  supervision  and  con- 
trol over  the  missions  and  operations  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionaiy  Society,  from  and  after  the  adoption  of  this 
minute,  and  authorizes  and  directs  said  society  to  perforin 
every  act  necessary  to  complete  said  transfer,  when  the  As- 
sembly shall  have  appointed  its  board,  it  being  expressly  un- 
derstood that  the  said  Assembly  will  never  hereafter  alienate 
or  transfer  to  any  other  judicatory  or  board  whatever,  the  di- 
rect supervision  and  management  of  the  said  missions,  or  those 
which  may  hereafter  be  established  by  the  board  of  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly. 

"  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  annually  choose  ten  minis- 
ters and  ten  laymen,  as  members  of  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four  years,  and  these 
forty  ministers  and  forty  laymen  so  appointed,  shall  consti- 
tute a  board,  to  be  styled  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        115 

the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States ;  to  "svliich,  for 
the  time  being,  shall  be  entrusted,  with  such  directions  and 
instructions  as  may  from  time  to  time  be  given,  the  superin- 
tendence of  the  foreign  missionary  operations  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  who  shall  make  annually  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, a  report  of  their  proceedings,  and  submit  for  its  ap- 
proval, such  plans  and  measures  as  may  be  deemed  useful 
and  necessary.  Until  the  transfer  shall  have  been  completed, 
the  business  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Western  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary Society. 

"  3.  The  board  of  directors  shall  hold  a  meeting  annually  at 
some  convenient  time  during  the  sessions  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, at  which  it  shall  appoint  a  president,  vice  president, 
a  corresponding  secretary,  a  treasurer,  general  agents,  and  an 
executive  committee,  to  serve  for  the  ensuing  year.  To  the 
board  it  shall  belong  to  receive  and  decide  upon  all  the  doings 
of  the  executive  committee,  to  receive  and  dispose  of  their  an- 
nual report,  and  present  a  statement  of  their  proceedings  to  the 
General  Assembly.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  of  di- 
rectors to  meet  for  the  transaction  of  business  as  often  as  may 
be  expedient ;  due  notice  of  every  special  meeting  being 
seasonably  given  to  every  member  of  the  board.  It  is  re- 
commended to  the  board  to  hold  in  different  parts  of  the 
church,  at  least  one  public  meeting  annually,  to  promote 
and  diffuse  a  livelier  interest  in  the  Foreign  Missionary  cause. 

"  4.  To  the  executive  committee,  consisting  of  not  more 
than  seven  members,  besides  the  corresponding  secretary,  and 
treasurer,  shall  belong  the  duty  of  appointing  all  missionai-ies 
and  missionary  agents,  except  those  otherwise  provided  for ; 
of  designating  their  fields  of  labor ;  receiving  the  reports  of 
the  corresponding  secretary ;  and  giving  him  needful  direc- 
tions in  reference  to  all  matters  of  business  and  correspon- 
dence entrusted  to  him ;  to  authorize  all  appropriations  and 
expenditures  of  money  ;  and  to  take  the  particular  direction 
and  management  of  foreign  missionary  work,  subject  to  the 
revision  of  the  board  of  directors,     'llie  executive  committee 


116        REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

shall  meet  at  least  once  a  montli,  and  oftener  if  necessary ; 
of  whom,  three  members  meeting  at  the  time  and  place  of 
adjournment  or  special  call,  shall  constitute  a  quorum.  The 
committee  shall  have  power  to  fill  their  own  vacancies,  if  any 
occur  during  a  recess  of  the  board. 

*'  5.  All  property,  houses,  lands,  tenements,  and  permanent 
funds  belonging  to  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  to  be  con- 
stituted by  this  agreement,  shall  be  taken  in  the  name  of  the 
trustees  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  held  in  trust  by 
them  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions for  the  time  being. 

".  6.  The  seat  of  the  operations  of  the  Board  shall  be  desig- 
nated by  the  General  Assembly. 

"  Cornelius  C.  Cutler, 
"  Chairman  of  the  Com.  of  the  Gen,  Jssetnhly." 

"  These  terms  were  accepted  by  a  vote  of  the  Synod ;  and 
the  Editor  of  the  *  Preshyteiian  announced,  that  *  Of  course 
the  General  Assembly  will  proceed  to  appoint  its  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  to  proceed,  according  to  the  above  agree- 
ment, in  the  work  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen.' 

"  The  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  at  its  meeting  in  York,  about 
the  same  date,  adopted  the  following  resolutions ,  viz.  : 

*^  Resolved,  1.  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Synod  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  bound  by  every 
consideration  in  faithfulness  to  our  divine  Master  and  fidelity 
to  our  ruined  world,  to  embark  fully  and  immediately  in  the 
great  cause  of  Foreign  Missions. 

"  2.  That  the  organization  by  that  body  of  a  permanent 
board  and  the  appointment  of  suitable  persons  for  this  work, 
should  be  undertaken  without  delay. 

"3.  That  the  principal  seat  of  the  operations  of  such  an  or- 
gmization  ought  to  be  in  one  of  the  large  Atlantic  cities — the 
Synod  v/ould  suggest  the  city  of  New- York. 

"  4.  That  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
Missions  ought  to  be  recjuested  to  transfer  to  the  Board  of 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  H? 

our  Assembly,  when  fully  organized,  all  those  stations  in  for- 
eign lands,  at  which  the  raajojity  of  ordained  persons  belong 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

"  5.  That  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who  are 
now  in  the  foreign  held,  or  who  may  hereafter  go  into  it, 
ought  in  the  opinion  of  this  Synod,  unless  special  and  extra- 
ordinary reasons  indicate  a  different  course,  to  maintain  a 
direct  missionary  relation  to  the  Board  of  their  own  church 
when  organized,  and  they  are  affectionately  exhorted  to  the 
serious  consideration  of  this  question. 

"  6.  That  if  the  General  Assembly  should  not,  at  its  next 
meeting,  organize  this  great  interest  upon  the  general  princi- 
ples now  exhibited,  this  Synod  will  itself,  at  its  next  meeting, 
in  dependence  upon  God,  fully  enter  upon  the  glorious  woi  k. 

**  Resoli'dd,  That  the  stated  Clerk  be  directed  to  lay  a  copy 
of  the  above  report  before  the  next  General  Assembly. 

*'  The  foregoing  *  Terms  of  Agreement,''  &c.,  and  also  the 
resolutions  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  were  submitted  to 
the  General  Assembly  of  1830,  and  were  committed  to  Drs. 
Phillips  and  Skinner,  and.  Messrs.  Scovil,  Dunlap,  and  Ewing. 
This  Committee  reported  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  That  the  attenFion  of  the  last  Assembly  was  called  to  the 
subject  of  Foreign  Missions  by  the  following  overture  on  p. 
31  of  the  Minutes.  [Here  the  report  quotes  the  first  resolu- 
tion from  p.  31  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1835.] 

"  The  Assembly  feeling  the  force  of  the  suggestions  con- 
tained in  this  overture,  and  believing  it  to  be  their  most  im- 
portant and  appro i-rlale  work  to  spread  the  gospel  through 
the  world,  adopted  the  overture  in  the  form  of  a  resolution, 
together  with  the  following,  viz.  [Here  the  report  quotes 
the  second  resolution  from  p.  31,  of  the  Minutes  of  1835.] 

*'  Thus  it  appears  tliat  the  proposition  to  confer  with  the 
Synod,  and  to  assume  the  supervision  and  control  of  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  originated  in  the  As- 


118       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

sembly.*  At  that  time  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary- 
Society  was  in  a  prosperous  condition,  enjoying  the  confidence 
and  receiving  the  patronage  of  a  considerable  number  of  our 
churches,  having  in  their  employ  about  20  missionaries,  and 
their  funds  were  unembarrassed.  The  committee  having  con- 
ferred with  some  of  the  members  of  that  Society,  and  finding 
that  the  proposition  was  favorably  regarded  by  them,  and 
indulging  the  hope  that  an  arrangement  might  be  defi.nitely 
made  with  the  Synod,  at  their  next  stated  meeting,  by  which 
the  Assembly  would  be  prepared  to  enter  on  the  work  at 
their  present  sessions,  brought  the  subject  again  before  the 
Assembly,  where  it  was,  after  mature  deliberation, 

"  Resolced,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburg  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the 
supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Mission  Society  to  the 
General  Assembly  be  authorized,  if  they  shall  approve  of  the 
said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same  with  the  said 
Synod  and  report  the  same  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 
[See  Minutes  for  1835,  p.  33.] 

*'  The  committee,  thus  appointed  and  clothed  with  full 
powers  to  ratify  and  confirm  a  transfer,  submitted  the  terms 
on  which  they  were  willing  to  accept  it  to  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburg  at  their  sessions  last  fall.  The  members  of  the 
committee  not  being  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Synod, 
and  there  being  no  time  for  farther  correspondence,  the 
Synod  (although  they  would  have  preferred  some  alterations 
of  the  terms,)  were  precluded  from  proposing  any  on  the 
ground  that  such  alteration  would  vitiate  the  whole  proceed- 
ings, and  therefore,  acceded  to  the  terms  of  the   transfer 

*  The  Chairman  of  this  Committee  ought  to  have  known  that  this 
proposition  did  not  originate  in  the  General  Assembly.  The  first  of 
the  resolutions  quoted  in  this  report,  was  a  transcript  of  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Pittsburg  Convention,  *  *  *  *  * 
and  Dr.  Phillips,  who  was  a  leading  member  of  that  Convention,  was 
aware  that  its  connection  with  the  appointment  of  the  Committee  to 
confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  was  at  least  as  intimate  as  that 
of  cause  and  efi^ect. 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        119 

which  were  proposed  by  the  committee  of  the  Assembly, 
and  solemnly  ratified  the  contract  on  their  part.  Feeling 
themselves  bound  by  the  same,  and  trusting  to  the  good 
faith  of  this  body,  they  have  acted  accordingly,  and  have 
made  no  provision  for  their  Missionaries  now  in  the  field  for 
a  longer  time  than  the  meeting  of  this  Assembly  ;  having  in- 
formed them  of  the  transfer  which  had  taken  place,  and  of  the 
new  relation  they  would  sustain  to  this  body  after  their  pre- 
sent sessions. 

"It  appears  then  to  your  committee  that  the  Assembly 
have  entered  into  a  solemn  compact  with  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burg, and  that  there  remains  but  one  lighteous  course  to 
pursue,  which  is,  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee  ap- 
pointed last  year,  and  to  appoint  a  Foreign  Missionary  Board. 
To  pause  now,  or  to  annul  the  doings  of  the  last  Assembly 
in  this  matter,  would  be  obviously  a  violation  of  contract,  a 
breach  of  trust,  and  a  departure  from  that  good  faith  which 
should  be  sacredly  kept  between  man  and  man,  and  especially 
between  Christian  Societies  ;  conduct,  which  would  be  utter- 
ly unworthy  of  this  venerable  body,  and  highly  injurious  to 
the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

"  The  committee  beg  leave  further  respectfully  to  remind 
the  Assembly,  that  a  large  proportion  of  our  churches, 
(being  Presbyterian  from  conviction  and  preference)  feel  it  to 
be  consistent  not  only,  but  their  solemn  duty  in  the  sight  of 
God,  to  impart  to  others  the  same  good,  and  in  the  same 
form  of  it,  which  they  enjoy  themselves,  and  to  be  repre- 
sented in  heathen  lands  by  Missionaries  of  their  own  denomina- 
tion! They  greatly  prefer  such  an  organization  as  that  con- 
templated, and  which  shall  be  under  the  care  of  the  Presby- 
terian Churches,  and  cannot  be  enlisted  so  well  in  the  great  , 
and  glorious  work  of  sending  the  gospel  to  the  heathen  un- 
der any  other.  Already,  with  the  blessing  of  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church,  on  the  efforts  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  in  this  form  of  operation,  has  a  missionary 
spirit  been  awakened  among  them  to  a  considerable  extent, 


120  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

and  an  interest  in  the  cause  of  missions  been  created,  never 
before  felt  by  them.  They  have  fm'nished  men  for  the  work, 
and  are  contributing  cheerfully  to  their  support  in  the  For- 
eign field. 

"  As  one  great  end  to  be  accomplished  by  all  who  love  the 
Redeemer,  is  to  awaken  and  cherish  a  missionary  spirit,  and 
to  enlist  all  the  churches  in  the  work  of  evangelizing  the 
world  ;  as  everj;^  leading  Christian  denomination  in  the  world 
has  its  Foreign  Missionary  Board,  and  has  found  such  dis- 
tinct organization  the  most  effective  method  of  interesting 
the  churches  under  their  care  in  this  great  subject ;  as  such 
an  organization  cannot  interfere  with  the  rights  or  operations 
of  any  other  similar  organization ;  for  the  field  is  the  world, 
and  is  wide  enough  for  all  to  cultivate ;  as  it  is  neither  de- 
sired nor  intended  to  dictate  to  any  in  this  matter,  but  sim- 
ply to  give  an  opportunity  of  sending  the  gospel  to  the 
heathen  by  their  own  missionaries  to  those  who  prefer  this 
mode  of  doing  so,  giving  them  that  liberty  which  they  cheer- 
fully accord  to  others  :  Your  committee  cannot  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  this  General  Assembly  will,  in  this  stage  of 
the  proceedings,  refuse  to  consummate  this  arrangement 
with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  and  thus  prevent  so  many 
churches  under  their  care  from  supporting  their  Missionaries 
in  their  own  way.  For  they  are  unwilling  to  believe  that 
there  can  exist  in  the  nineteenth  century,  a  spirit  of  bigotry 
and  intolerance,  which  would  interfere  with  the  sacred  liberty 
of  conscience,  and  which  would  seem  to  say  to  all,  unless 
you  belong  to  our  party,  you  shall  not  publish  the  glad  tid- 
ings of  salvation  through  the  crucified  Redeemer  to  a  dying 
world.  From  this  view  of  the  case,  they  recommend  to  the 
Assembly  the  following  resolutions,  viz. 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed 
by  the  last  Assembly  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg 
on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign  Mission- 
ary Society  to  the  General  Assembly  be  adopted,  and  that 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  121 

said  transfer  be  accepted  on  the  terms  of  agreement  therein 
contained. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  will  proceed  to  appoint 
a  Foreign  Mission  Board,  the  seat  of  whose  operations  shall 
be  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

(Signed)  W.  W.  Phillips,  Chairman. 

"  Agreed  to  by  the  committee,  excepting  Dr.  Skinner,  who 
as  the  minority  of  the  Committee  presented  the  following 
report,  viz. 

*' Whereas  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions,  has  been  connected  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  from  the  year  of  its  incorporation,  by  the  very  ele- 
ments of  its  existence ;  and  whereas  at  the  present  time  the 
majority  of  the  whole  of  the  Board  are  Presbyterians  ;  and 
whereas  it  is  undesirable,  in  conducting  the  v»^ork  of  Foreign 
Missions,  that  there  should  be  any  collision  at  home  or 
abroad ;  therefore 

^^ Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  that  the  Assembly  should 
organize  a  separate  Foreign  Missionary  Institution." 

**  The  question  being  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee,  a  motion  was  introduced  to  postpone  this  report, 
for  the  purpose  of  adopting  the  counter  report  of  Dr.  Skin- 
ner. A  long  debate  ensued,  embracing  to  some  extent  the 
merits  of  the  whole  subject;  at  the  close  of  which,  the  vote 
was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  when  it  appeared  that  there 
was  a  majority  of  one  against  the  postponement.  This  has 
been  regarded  by  some  as  exhibiting  '  a  majority  of  one  in 
favor  of  an  ecclesiastical  organization.'  We  are  assured, 
however,  that  more  than  one  who  voted  against  the  post- 
ponement, voted,  on  the  final  question,  to  reject  the  plan 
proposed  by  the  Committee.  They  voted  against  the  post- 
ponement, because  they  preferred  to  meet  directly  the  report 
of  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  and  reject  it  at  once. 

**  On  a  subsequent  day,  the  question  was  resumed,  and 
after  a  renewed  and  animated  debate  of  several  hours,  the 


122  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

plan  proposed  by  the  Committee  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  111  to  106,  eibibiting  a  majority  of  live  against  the  at- 
tempted organization.  Against  this  decision,  the  following 
protest,  penned  by  Dr.  Miller,  and  signed  by  himself  and 
eighty-one  other  members  of  the  Assembly,  containing  a 
summary  of  the  reasons  which  had  been  previously  urged 
in  favor  of  the  formation  of  the  proposed  Board,  was  entered 
on  the  Minutes :  viz. 

"  The  undersigned  would  solemnly  protest  against  the  de- 
cision of  the  General  Assembly,  whereby  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  the  last  General  Assembly  respecting  the 
Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  was  rejected :  for  the 
following  reasons,  viz. 

"  1.  Because  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in 
this  case  as  an  unjustifiable  refusal  to  carry  into  effect  a 
solemn  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  duly  ratified 
and  confirmed  under  the  authority  of  the  last  Assembly. 

"  2.  Because  we  are  impressed  with  the  deepest  conviction 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity, 
is  bound,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  her  divine  Head 
and  Lord,  to  send  the  glorious  Gospel,  as  far  as  may  be  in 
her  power,  to  every  creature ;  and  we  consider  the  decision 
of  the  Assembly  in  this  case  as  a  direct  refusal  to  obey  this 
command,  and  to  pursue  one  of  the  great  objects  for  which 
the  church  was  founded. 

"  3.  Because  it  is  our  deliberate  persuasion  that  a  large 
part  of  the  energy,  zeal,  and  resources  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  missionary  cause, 
without  the  establishment  of  a  missionary  board  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  It  is  evident  that  no  other  ecclesiastical 
organization  by  fragments  of  the  church  can  be  formed, 
which  will  unite,  satisfy,  and  call  forth  the  zealous  co-opera- 
tion of  those  in  every  part  of  the  church  who  wish  for  a 
general  Presbyterian  Board. 

"  4.  Because  while  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknow- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        123 

ledge  that  ihey  had  a  board  which  fully  met  all  the  wants 
and  wishes  of  themselves  and  those  who  sympathized  with 
them ;  they  refused  to  make  such  a  decision  as  would  accord 
to  us  a  similar  and  equal  privilege ;  thereby,  as  we  conceive, 
refusing  that  which  Avould  have  been  only  just  and  equal, 
and  rejecting  a  plan  which  would  have  greatly  extended  the 
missionary  spirit,  and  exerted  a  reflex  beneficial  influence  on 
the  chuj dies  thus  indulged  with  a  board  agreeable  to  their 
views. 

"5.  Because  to  all  these  considerations,  urged  with  a  so- 
lemnity and  affection,  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  were 
deaf,  and  have  laid  us  under  the  necessity  of  protesting 
against  their  course ;  and  of  coqi plaining  that  we  are  denied 
a  most  reasonable,  and,  to  us,  most  precious  privilege,  and 
of  lamenting  that  we  are  laid  under  the  necessity  of  resort- 
ing to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  complicated,  incon- 
venient, and  much  more  adapted,  on  a  variety  of  accounts, 
to  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  harmony,  than  the  proposed 
board  could  have  been, 

''Pittsburg,  June  9th,  1836. 

"  To  this  protest.  Dr.  Peters,  as  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee appointed  for  that  purpose,  presented  the  following 
answer,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  and  entered 
on  the  Minutes :  viz. 

"  In  answer  to  the  protest  of  the  minority  of  the  General 
Assembly  on  the  subject  of  Foreign  Missions,  the  majority 
regard  it  as  due  to  the  churches  and  the  friends  of  missions 
generally,  to  state  some  of  the  grounds  on  which  they  have 
declined  to  carry  into  effect  the  arrangement  adopted  and 
reported  by  the  committee  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  in 
regard  to  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

"  We  are  of  opinion, 

"1.  That  the  powers  intended  to  be  conferred  upon  the 
above  committee  by  the  last  Assembly,  to  ratify  and  confirm 


124  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

the  transfer  of  the  said  society  from  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg 
to  the  General  Assembly,  on  such  terras  as  the  said  commit- 
tee might  approve,  are  altogether  unusual  and  unwarranted ; 
and  especially  that  it  was  indiscreet  and  improper  for  that 
Assembly  to  attempt  to  confer  such  unlimited  powers  for 
such  a  purpose,  in  the  existing  state  of  our  churches,  upon 
so  small  a  committee  ;  and  that  too  on  the  last  day  of  the 
sessions  of  the  Assembly,  when  more  than  one  half  of  the 
enrolled  members  of  the  body  had  obtained  leave  of  absence, 
and  had  already  returned  to  their  homes. 

"2.  That  it  was  unwarrantable  and  improper  for  the 
above  committee,  in  the  exercise  of  the  extraordinary  powers 
supposed  to  be  conferred  on  them,  to  incorporate  in  their 
agreement  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  the  condition,  that 
the  supervision  of  the  missions  of  the  Missionary  Board 
intended  to  be  organized  should  never  be  alienated  by  the 
General  Assembly,  thus  endeavoring  to  bind  irreversibly  all 
future  assemblies  by  the  stipulations  of  that  committee. 

"3.  It  is,  therefore,  our  deep  conviction  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  this  Assembly  to  resist  the  unwarrantable  and  extra- 
ordinary powers  of  the  above  committee,  and  to  reject  the 
unreasonable  condition  of  their  contract  with  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburg. 

"4.  It  is  our  settled  belief  that  the  church  is  one  by  divine 
constitution,  and  that  the  command  is  of  universal  obligation  : 
*  Let  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,'  and  that  whatever 
advantages  or  disadvantages  may  have  resulted  from  the 
division  of  the  church  into  numerous  denominations,  with 
conflicting  opinions,  it  cannot  be  our  duty,  as  Christians,  to 
perpetuate  and  extend  these  divisions  by  incorporating  them 
in  our  arrangement  to  spread  the  Gospel  in  heathen 
lands.  We  cannot,  therefore,  regard  the  decision  of  the  As- 
sembly in  this  case,  as  a  refusal  to  obey  the  command  of  the 
Great  Head  of  the  church  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. That  command,  as  we  understand  it,  is  not  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  her  distinctive  ecclesiastical  capacity. 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        125 

but  to  the  whole  church,  to  tlie  collective  body  of  Christ's 
disciples,  of  every  name.  It  was  that  they  may  the  more 
effectually  obey  the  above  command,  by  uniting  with  chris- 
tians of  other  denominations  in  the  noble  work  of  foreio-Q 

o 

missions,  that  the  Assembly  declined  to  carry  into  effect  the 
proposed  organization  restricted  to  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

**  5.  We  do  not  agree  with  the  protestants  in  the  opinion 
that  the  resources  of  any  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
*  cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  missionary  cause  without 
the  establishment  of  a  Missionary  Board  by  the  General  As- 
sembly.' The  history  of  missionary  operations  in  this  and 
in  other  countries  furnishes  ample  evidence  that  the  energy 
and  zeal  of  christians  in  the  spread  of  the  gospel  are  much 
more  effectually  enlisted,  and  their  liberality  greatly  increased 
by  more  expanded  organizations,  which  overstep  the  limits 
of  sects,  and  the  bond  of  whose  union  is  the  one  great  object 
of  spreading  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God.  It  is 
our  settled  belief  that  societies  formed  on  these  principles, 
and  including  different  denominations  of  christians,  are  ac- 
tually performing  as  the  proxies  of  the  church,  in  the  work 
of  missions,  that  which  the  church,  on  account  of  her  exist- 
ino'  divisions,  can  perform  in  no  other  way  so  well.  They 
appear  to  us  to  have  embraced  the  harmonizing  principle 
which  is  destined- ultimately  to  reunite  the  churches,  and. 
make  them  one,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning  and  will  be  in  the 
end. 

"  6.  While  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknowledge 
their  unabated  confidence  in  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  as  fully  meeting  our  wishes, 
and  affording  a  safe  and  open  channel  through  which  all  our 
churches  may,  as  consistent  Presbyterians,  convey  their  con- 
tributions to  the  cause  of  Foreign  Missions  ;  we  do  not  re- 
gard ourselves  as  having  denied,  by  the  decision  protested 
against  to  the  minority,  the  privilege  of  conducting  their 
missionary  operations  with  entire  freedom,  on  any  other  plan 
which  they  may  prefer.  But  we  think  it  unreasonable  for 
6 


126  REAL    GROUiNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

them  to  ask  us  to  form,  and  to  complain  of  our  not  forming, 
by  a  vote  of  the  General  Assembly,  an  organization,  the 
principles  of  which  we  do  not  approve.  We  do  not  ask  of 
them  to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  the  plan  which  we 
prefer,  and  we  cannot  regard  ourselves  as  chargeable  with 
unkindness  or  injustice,  in  having  refused  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  the  plan  which  ihey  prefer.  If  we  cannot 
agi'ee  to  unite  in  the  same  organization,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, it  appears  to  us  manifestly  proper,  that  each  party 
should  bear  the  responsibihties  of  its  own  chosen  plan  of 
operations  ;  and  if  our  brethren  cannot  so  far  commend  their 
principles,  as  to  extend  their  ecclesiastical  organizations  be- 
yond those  ''  fragments  of  the  church"  of  which  they  speak, 
they  surely  ought  not  to  complain  of  us,  "if  those  in  every 
part  of  the  church  who  wish  for  a  general  Presbyterian 
Board,"  remain  dissatisfied.  We  would  respectfully  ask 
whether  they  ought  not  to  charge  their  embarrassment,  in 
this  respect,  to  the  plan  which  they  have  adopted,  rather 
than  to  those  who  have  chosen,  on  their  own  responsibility, 
in  the  fear  of  God,  to  conduct  their  missionary  operations 
on  other  principles.  If,  therefore,  the  minority  of  the  As- 
sembly should  hereafter  judge  themselves  under  "  the  ne- 
cessity of  resorting  to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organization" 
which  shall  *'  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  harmony,"  the 
majority  cannot  regard  themselves  as  responsible  for  such 
results.  The  settled  belief  of  the  majority  of  the  Assembly 
is,  that  the  operations  of  the  American  Board  of  Commis- 
sioners for  Foreign  Missions,  with  its  numerous  auxiliaries, 
both  ecclesiastical  and  voluntary,  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  present  the  best  arrangement  for  the 
promotion  of  the  cause  of  missions  by  our  churches ;  and  it 
was  to  prevent  the  ecclesiastical  conflicts  and  divisions  which 
have  resulted  from  the  operations  of  other  similar  organiza- 
tions, that  they  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  decline  the 
organization  proposed.  They  have  made  their  decision  for 
the  purpose,  and  with  the  hope  of  securing  and  promoting 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        127 

the  union  in  the  missionary  woik  which  has  so  happily  ex- 
isted in  former  years.  With  these  views  and  hopes,  they 
commend  the  cause  of  missions  and  their  solemn  and  con- 
scientious decision  to  the  blessing  of  God,  and  pray  for  the 
peace  of  Jerusalem." 

"  The  reader  is  now  in  full  possession  of  the  history  of  the 
proposed  measure  and  its  rejection,  as  far  as  it  may  be  gath- 
ered from  the  Minutes  of  the  two  General  Assemblies  before 
which  it  was  urged." — See  Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies, 
2Mges  35-47. 

Ample  as  is  the  proof  now  before  our  readers,  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  exclusive  and  intolerant  views  and  pohcy  of 
the  advocates  of  Ecclesiastical  Boards  in  bringing  about  the 
division  of  the  Church,  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  sum  total  by 
which  the  fact  may  be  established. 

At  their  signal  defeat  in  the  Assembly  of  1836,  the  ultra- 
ists  were  far  from  a  submissive  spirit.  The  most  intolerant 
among  them  undoubtedly  hoped  to  secure  the  condemnation 
of  Doctor  Beecher  and  Mr.  Barnes,  and  the  ratification  of  the 
agreement  respecting  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Soci- 
ety between  the  Assembly  of  the  previous  year  and  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburg,  and  thereby  awe  those  who  difl"ered 
from  them  into  submission.  Had  their  hopes  been  reahzed, 
they  would  have- had  the  whole  Church  committed  to  the 
principle  of  Ecclesiastical  Boards. 

Before  the  close  of  the  Assembly  they  gave  unmistakable 
indications  of  their  determination  not  to  submit  to  its  de- 
cisions. The  evening  previous  to  the  close  of  its  sessions, 
they  held  a  private  meeting  in  the  basement  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Blythe's  church.  It  was  ascertained  on  authority  fully  en- 
titled to  credit,  that  at  that  meeting  the  subject  of  a  division 
of  the  Church  had  been  discussed.  A  convention,  similar  to 
the  one  held  in  Pittsburg  the  year  previous,  was  proposed 
for  effecting  it.  "  This,  however,  was  objected  to  by  some 
of  the  more  cautious,  and,  at  their  suggestion,  after  consid- 
erable discussion,  it  was  agreed  that  it  would  be  much  the 


128        REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

wisest  plan  to  appoint  a  confidential  committee  of  corre- 
spondence, to  write  to  such  ministers  and  elders  in  all  parts 
of  the  Church  as  were  known  to  sympathize  with  them,  and 
urge  them  to  use  all  their  influence  to  secure  the  appoint- 
ment of  such  delegates  to  the  next  Assembly,  as  might  be 
depended  on  to  favor  the  views  of  the  present  minority. 
The  committee  were  also  to  be  instructed  to  kee}:)  their  cor- 
respondence out  of  the  newspapers  as  long  as  possible,  and 
exert  their  influence  secretly,  until  they  should  judge  it  ex- 
pedient to  avow  their  purpose.  Then,  instead  of  having  an- 
other *  Pittsburg  Convention '  publicly  called,  the  prevalent 
opinion  was,  that  it  would  be  best  to  have  such  individuals 
as  the  committee  might  designate,  meet  at  Philadelphia,  as 
if  by  common  consent,  a  day  or  two  before  the  meeting  of 
the  next  General  Assembly,  and  there  hold  a  conference  as 
to  the  measures  proper  to  be  adopted  by  the  party.  If  it 
should  then  appear  from  the  report  of  the  confidential  com- 
mittee, that  they  might  calculate  on  a  majority,  they  would 
proceed  and  adopt  such  measures  as  they  desired ;  but  if 
they  should  find  themselves  a  minority  still,  it  was  suggested 
that  they  might  then  determine  to  retire  from  the  meeting 
of  the  majority,  and  call  themselves  the  General  Assembly, 
and  proceed  accordingly."* 

Immediately  after  the  Moderator  had  pronounced  the  ben- 
ediction and  declared  the  Assembly  dissolved,  he  "an- 
nounced that  all  the  individuals  who  had  been  present  at  the 
meeting  in  the  basement  of  Mr.  Blythe's  church,  the  pre- 
ceding evening,  were  expected  to  attend  a  similar  meeting  at 
the  same  place  that  afternoon  at  3  o'clock." 

"  The  meeting  was  convened  according  to  his  announce- 
ments, but  of  what  was  said  and  done  within  its  enclosures, 
we  are  wholly  ignorant ;  excepting  so  far  as  its  decisions  have 
been  indicated  by  what  has  since  transpired  ;  and  this  leaves 
us  in  no  doubt  as  to  their  substantial  accordance  with  the 
suggestions  of  the  previous  evening.  Soon  after  the  meeting 
*  Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies,  pages  165,  166. 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        129 

was  dissolved  and  the  members,  with  others,  were  preparing 
for  their  return  to  their  homes,  Mr.  Witherspoon,"  (the  Mod- 
erator of  the  Assembly),  *'  remarked  to  a  gentleman  Avho 
accosted  him  on  the  subject  of  the  meeting,  *  The  die  is 
cast ;  the  Church  is  to  be  divided.'  The  newspapers,  also, 
which  are  the  organs  of  the  party,  have  been  constantly 
breathing  suspicion  and  suggesting  and  advocating  division. 
But  the  Confidential  Committee  were  silent  and  unknown  to 
the  public  until  the  issuing  of  their  pamphlet,  which  has 
waked  the  party  papers  to  a  bolder  tone  of  advocacy  on  be- 
half of  division ;  and  by  some  a  convention  for  this  purpose, 
to  meet  immediately  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  next  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  is  boldly  and  strenuously  urged."  * 

The  pamphlet  alluded  to  "  was  issued  about  the  last  of 
August.  It  was  preceded,  however,  by  a  secret  circular,  over 
the  signatures  of  the  same  *  Committee,'  dated  New  York,  July 
13, 1836.  This  circular  was  addressed,  in  a  confidential  way,  to 
numerous  individuals,  both  ministers  and  laymen,  supposed 
to  be  displeased,  (or  capable  of  being  rendered  so,)  with  the 
decisions  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  was  not  seen  by  others, 
until  it  providentially  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  correspondent 
of  the  Philadelphia  Observer,'  by  whom  it  was  forwarded, 
to  that  paper  and  pubhshed  on  the  15  th  of  September.  It 
asks  attention  to  the  proceedings  of  the  last  Assembly,  and 
concludes  with  a  series  of  questions  addressed  to  each  of  the 
selected  individuals  as  follows,  viz. : — 

*  And  now,  dear  brother,  in  view  of  the  whole  subject,  we 
ask  you.  What  ought  to  be  done  ?  That  we  may  be  put  fully 
in  possession  of  your  views,  without  at  this  time  expressing 
any  of  our  own,  we  would  respectfully  ask  you  the  following 
questions : — 

*  1 .  With  so  great  diversity  of  sentiment  in  regard  to  doc- 
trine and  order  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  can  we  continue 
united  in  one  body,  and  maintain  the  integrity  of  our  stand- 
ards, and  promote  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness  in 
the  earth  ? 

*  Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies,  pages  165-167. 


130       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

'  2.  If  you  think  we  can,  then  please  to  say  how  the  causes 
that  at  present  distract  us  can  be  removed. 

*  3.  Do  you  believe  that  there  are  ministers  in  our  connec- 
tion who  hold  errors,  on  account  of  which  they  ought  to  be 
separated  from  us  ? 

'  4.  If  you  think  such  errors  are  held,  please  to  name  them 
particularly  ? 

*  5.  If  you  believe  that  persons  holding  the  errors  you 
name,  ought  to  be  separated  from  our  communion,  what  in 
your  judgment  is  the  best  way  of  accomplishing  it  ? 

*  6.  It  was  repeatedly  avowed  by  ministers  in  the  last 
General  Assembly,  that  they  received  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  our  Church  only  "for  substance  of  doctrine" — "  as  a  sys- 
tem " — or  "  as  containing  the  Calvinistic  system  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Arminian,"  &c. — hence  we  know  how  much  of 
our  Standards  they  adopt  and  how  much  they  reject.  Is 
this,  in  your  opinion,  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  "  re- 
ceiving and  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith  ?" 

*  7.  It  is  believed  by  many  that  much  of  the  evil  of  which 
we  now  complain,  has  come  upon  us  in  consequence  of  our 
connection  with  Congregational  churches  within  our  bounds, 
and  represented  in  our  judicatories.  We  would  ask  you 
whether,  in  your  judgment,  it  would  not  be  better  for  us  as 
a  Church,  to  have  no  other  connection  with  Congregation- 
alists  than  the  friendly  one  which  we  now  have  with  them  as 
corresponding  bodies  ? 

'  You  are  earnestly  entreated,  dear  brother,  to  give  a 
serious  and  speedy  answer  to  these  inquiries.  It  is  of  vast 
importance  to  our  beloved  Church  that  we  should  have  em- 
bodied, as  soon  as  practicable,  the  views  of  judicious,  thorough 
Presbyterians  of  our  connection,  as  the  best  index  in  regard 
to  the  course  that  ought  to  be  pursued.* 

"  To  be  convinced  that  this  letter  was  intended  to  prepare 
the  way  for  a  division  of  the  church,  we  have  only  to  recur 
to  the  pamphlet  before  named.      Here  we  find  the  same  in- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        131 

dividuals,  in  a  little  more  than  a  month  after  the  date  of  the 
letter  containing  the  above  confidential  inquiries,  openly  and 
avowedly  advocating  division,  and  laboring  to  convince  all 
the  disaffected  that  it  is  their  solemn  duty,  if  possible,  by  all 
means  to  produce  the  dismemberment  of  all  who  sympathize 
with  the  decisions  of  the  last  Assembly.     They  say, 

*  That  creeds,  confessions  of  faith,  to  answer  their  true  and 
legitimate  purpose,  must  be  honeslhj  received.  And  here  we 
are  constrained  to  believe  is  one  fruitful  source  of  our  present 
distractions  as  a  church,  a  lack  of  honesty  in  the  reception  of 
our  standards.  Some  examine  these  standards  with  care — 
they  compare  them  with  the  scriptures  of  truth  on  whi.^h 
they  profess  to  be  founded — they  scan  narrowly  the  language 
used  in  them,  and  ha^dng  done  so,  they  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  all  .the  doctrines  they  contain.  Without  laying  any 
claim  to  infallibility,  or  pretending  to  judge  those  who  may 
differ  from  them,  they  proclaim  to  the  world  that  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  this  Church  is  their  confession  of  faith. 
They  feel  themselves  solemnly  bound,  as  by  an  oath,  to  ad- 
here to  this  form  of  sound  words,  and  to  publish  no  doctrines 
either  inconsistent  or  at  variance  with  it.  This  course  they 
pursue  as  honest  men.  There  are  others,  however,  who  view 
this  matter  in  a  very  different  light,  and  who  act  a  very  dif- 
ferent part.  Although  they  have  professed  to  receive  our 
standards  in  the  same  manner  with  the  class  just  referred  to, 
they  do  not  consider  themselves  bound  by  that  act  to  receive 
all  the  doctrines  contained  in  them  ;  nor  to  construe  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  are  expressed,  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
was  manifestly  employed  by  those  who  framed  them.' 

"  Again.  '  Under  the  name  and  cloak  of  Presbyterianism 
they  disseminate  sentiments  which  lead  directly  to  Arminian- 
ism,  Pelagianism  and  Socinianism.  These  are  the  men  who, 
in  our  judgment,  have  caused  divisions  among  us — for  we  are 
a  divided  church— as  really  divided  as  though  we  were  rtiUed 
by  different  names  and  existed  under  different  organizations. 


132  R^AL    GROUNDS  OF    THE    EXCISION. 

The  schism  has  come  already,  and  let  those  men  who  have 
come  into  our  church  by  professing  to  receive  our  standards, 
when,  in  fact,  they  did  not  believe  them  in  their  plain  and 
obvious  import,  answer  for  it — for  they  are  its  authors." — 
A  Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies,  jKt^es  156,  159. 

Subsequently  they  say,  "  Fathers,  brethren,  fellow-Chris- 
tians, whatever  else  may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  ice  cannot 
continue  in  the  same  body.  We  are  not  agreed,  and  it  is  vain 
to  attempt  to  walk  together.  That  those  whom  we  regard 
as  the  authors  of  our  present  distractions  will  retrace  their 
steps,  is  not  to  be  expected ;  and  that  those  who  have  hith- 
erto rallied  around  the  standards  of  our  Church  will  continue 
to  do  so,  is  both  to  be  expected  and  desired.  In  some  way 
or  other,  therefore,  THESE  MEN  MUST  BE  SEPARATED 
FROM  US." — Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies,  page  163. 

We  cannot  more  fully  express  our  own  views  of  the  na- 
ture and  tendency  of  this  whole  transaction  than  by  quoting 
the  following  from  the  remarks  of  the  Correspondent  of  the 
**  Philadelphia  Observer,"  before  referred  to,  accompanying 
the  publication  of  the  secret  circular  of  the  confidential  com- 
mittee, viz. : — 

*'  *  2.  The  tendency  of  the  letter  is  to  invite  crimination, 
and  to  perpetuate  alienation  and  contention.  What  does  it 
ask  of  each  man  to  whom  it  is  sent  ?  Does  it  ask  him  to 
cherish  feelings  of  love  and  charity  towards  his  ministerial 
brethren  around  him?  Does  it  conjure  him  to  seek  their  aid 
and  co-operation  in  endeavoring  to  advance  the  kingdom  of 
the  Redeemer,  and  to  promote  pure  and  undefiled  religion  ? 
Does  it  implore  him  to  lay  aside  any  unfounded  suspicions 
which  he  may  have  cherished  respecting  the  piety,  the  hon- 
esty, and  the  orthodoxy  of  brethren  in  the  same  communion? 
No.  It  asks  of  every  man  to  look  over  tlie  whole  ciicle  of 
his  ministerial  acquaintance ;  to  put  his  memory  and  his  in- 
vention upon  the  rack  ;  to  form  in  his  own  mind  charges  of 
heresy  against  ministers  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  report 
them  SECRETLY  to  this  committee  with  a  view  to  further  ac- 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        133 

tion.  Every  man  to  whom  the  letter  is  sent,  is  tenderly 
invited  to  become  a  spy  upon  his  brethren ;  to  give  form  and 
substance  to  all  his  suspicions ;  to  put  his  own  construction 
upon  his  brother's  sentiments ;  to  report  them  to  the  com- 
mittee ;  and  to  become  pledged  over  his  own  hand  that  such 
brethren  ought  to  be  cut  off  from  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
If  thus  pledged,  it  is  assumed  that  he  will  act  for  it,  and 
vote  for  it,  when  the  effort  ^shall  be  made  to  expurgate  the 
church." 

"  How  extensively  this  letter  breathing  suspicion,  and  in- 
viting crimination  has  been  circulated,  no  man  can  tell,  ex- 
cept the  committee  and  they  who  are  with  them  in  the  secret 
and  dishonorable  plan.  I  have  heard  of  it  from  the  North 
and  the  West.  Few  probably  have  gone  East ;  the  South, 
doubtless,  is  flooded.  It  is  to  be  presumed,  however,  that 
its  circulation  has  been  al  least  co-extensive  with  the  sierners 
of  the  "Act  and  Testimony" — for  they  are  all  pledged,  and 
sworn,  and  tried  men.  Yet  where  are  they  ?  They  are 
scattered  everywhere  through  the  Church.  Every  minister 
not  in  the  secret  has  one  or  more  of  them  in  his  neighbor- 
hood, perhaps  in  his  own  Presbytery.  To  promote  the 
same  object,  the  letters  are  sent  to  the  elders  of  the  churches 
that  they  may  become  spies  upon  their  pastors,  and  inform- 
ers in  regard  to  their  orthodoxy.  It  invites  to  secret  suspi- 
cion, and  secret  crimination.  It  asks  my  neighbor  with 
whom  I  am  associated,  and  who  sees  me  every  day,  to  be  a 
spy  upon  my  movements  ;  and  to  give  his  own  construction 
to  my  opinions,  and  secretly  to  convey  his  impressions  to  a 
distant,  irresponsible  committee,  clandestinely  engaged  in 
plotting  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church,  and  overthrow- 
ing the  fair  institutions  of  Presbyterianism  in  this  land. 

"  '  3.  This  letter  contemplates  movements  that  are  an  en- 
tire departure  from  Presbyterianism ;  and  which,  it  seems  to 
me,  involve  a  violation  of  solemn  ministerial  vows.  Every 
minister  of  the  Gospel  in  our  connexion  solemnly  promises  to 
adhere  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and  it 
6# 


134       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION, 

is  implied  in  those  vows  that  he  will  seek  no  other  mode  of 
discipline,  and  no  other  measures  for  opposing  heresy  or  er- 
ror than  those  which  are  prescribed  in  the  standards.  Yet 
in  the  cases  which  have  given  birth  to  this  letter,  the  regular 
and  prescribed  modes  of  discipline  have  been  pursued. 
Charges  have  been  regularly  brought  and  tried,  and  after 
the  fullest  investigations  there  has  been  an  entire  acquittal. 
Here  according  to  Presbyterianism  and  common  honesty,  the 
matter  in  regard  to  those  gentlemen  is  to  stop.  If  there  are 
gentlemen  in  the  Church  who  hold  error,  the  way  is  open 
for  their  regular  arraignment,  and  trial,  and  condemnation. 
The  Book  of  Discipline  prescribes  the  course,  and  the  only 
course  which  conscientious  Presbyterians  can  pursue.  But 
this  letter  invites  to  a  different  course.  It  contemplates  a 
new  measure.  It  asks  gravely  of  the  initiated  and  the  faith- 
ful, whether,  if  any  such  error  exists  as  ought  to  exclude  the 
holders  thereof  from  the  Church,  they  know  of  any  mode  in 
which  the  offending  brother  can  be  removed  ?  Why  is  this  ? 
Is  not  the  way  open?  Does  not  the  Book  of  Discipline  pre- 
scribe the  mode  ?  Can  an  honest  Presbyterian  ask  about 
any  other  mode  than  that  to  which  he  has  sworn,  and  to 
which  he  has  promised  adherence  ?  Why  then  is  invention 
put  upon  the  rack  ?  Why  then  do  the  Committee  acknow- 
ledge that  they  can  tliink  of  no  way,  and  invite  others  all 
over  the  land  to  think  out  some  new  way  by  which  they  can 
eject  their  brethren  from  the  ministry  ?  The  language  of 
this  question  put  into  plain  English,  is  this,  "  We  have  tried 
the  regular  steps  of  discipline  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  the  system  does  not  work  to  our  mind.  We  raised  the 
note  of  alarm ;  we  succeeded  in  getting  the  Church  excited 
and  distracted ;  we  enrolled  the  names  of  all  who  promised 
to  adhere  to  us ;  and  then,  when  matters  were  all  arranged, 
we  brought  charges  against  prominent  men.  We  carried 
those  charges  through  all  the  regular  stages,  and  adopted  all 
the  means  known  to  the  Constitution.  But  the  system  did  not 
work  to  our  mind.     They  are  still  in  the  Church.     Do  you 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        135 

know,  "  dear  brother,"  of  any  new  way — any  way  unknown 
to  the  Constitution  by  which  those  men  and  their  friends  can 
be  removed  ?  Is  there  any  new  way  of  attacking  them,  of 
undermining  their  influence,  of  cripphng  their  usefulness,  so 
as  to  compel  them  to  leave  the  Church  ?  It  is  true  we  have 
established  rules,  and  a  regular  government,  and  most  excel- 
lent standaids,"  and  we  have  tried  all  these.  But  nil  this 
uvaileth  vs  nothing  so  long  as  we  see  Mordecai  the  Jew  sit- 
ting in  the  King's  gate,'* 

"  4.  It  is  natural  to  ask  who  are  the  men  who  thus  se- 
cretly invite  suspicion,  and  crimination,  and  who  are  aiming 
at  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  ? 

"  Foremost  is  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  one 
other  minister  who  came  among  us  from  the  Seceder  Church. 
Not  native  born  Presbyterians  ;  or  not  nurtured  in  the  views 
of  interpreting  the  Standards  of  the  Church  which  have  pre- 
vailed among  us  from  the  year  1729 — and  down  through  all 
the  periods  of  our  history  till  the  present,  they  came  among 
us  but  a  few  years  since  with  a  few  others  from  the  same 
communion,  and  as  one  of  their  first  acts  they  now  invite 
suspicion,  and  crimination,  and  modestly  demand  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  ministers  of  our  connection  should  be  ejected. 
Certainly  the  modesty  of  these  gentlemen  cannot  be  suffi- 
ciently commended ;  nor  can  it  be  deemed  surprising  that 
they  should  in  this  letter  complain  of  ''foreign  influence,'* 
and  ask  whether  the  evils  which  now  exist  have  not  arisen 
from  a  *' foreign  influenoe" — from  our  connection  with  the 
churches  of  New  England  ?  Almost  forty  j-ears  have  rolled 
away  since  that  connection  was  formed ;  ten  j^ears  have  not 
elapsed  since  those  gentlemen  were  in  the  Associate  church. 

"  One  other  of  the  signers  of  this  letter  is  a  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Princefon.  Last  fall,  in  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia,  this  gentlemaft  used  the  following  language, 
"  Let  us  trust  the  next  General  Assembly."  If  that  body 
shall  not  decide  that  there  is  error  and  more  dangerous  error 
in  this  book  (Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans)  then  my 


136       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

best  prayer  for  it  shall  be,  **  may  it  never,  never,  meet  again  1'' 
Yes ;  if  that  shall  be  its  decision,  let  it  be  dissolved  into  its 
elements  ;  and  while  out  of  its  scattered  fragments  th©  gold, 
and  ^silver,  and  precious  stones  shall  be  gathered  into  one 
heap,  let  the  wood,  and  hay,  and  stubble  be  gathered  into 
another.  If  the  Assembly  shall  take  your  ground  we  shall 
be  safe  :  but  if  not,  I  repeat  the  prayer,  *  may  it  never,  no, 
NEVER  MEET  AGAIN.'  Report  of  Syuod,  p.  263.  This  Secret 
Letter  is  one  of  the  means  by  which  this  prayerHs  to  be  an- 
swered. 

"  The  name  of  another  member  of  the  Committee  is  the 
Rev.  William  A.  M'Dowell,  D.D.,  Secretary"^  and  General 
Agent  of  the  General  Assembly's  Board  of  Missions.  That 
his  name  is  there  isi/l  be  a  matter  of  surprise  and  regret  by 
all  his  friends.  His  course  of  life  hitherto  had  not  been  such 
as  to  lead  to  the  expectation  that  his  name  should  be  thus 
recorded.  It  would  have  been  predicted  ten  years  since,  nay^, 
three  years  since,  that  he  would  have  pursued  a  different 
course ;  and  that  from  respect  to  his  official  station,  or  his 
personal  character,  or  following  the  natural  inclinations  of  his 
heart  to  peace,  and  to  confidence  in  his  ministerial  brethren, 
he  would  have  frowned  on  a  transaction  like  this.  I  venture 
to  predict  that  the  time  will  come — and  that  at  no  distant 
period — when  he  will  look  upon  this  act  with  regret. 

"  The  name  of  one  other  gentleman  is  that  of  the  Rev. 
Francis  M'Farland,  Correspondiag  Sficretary  and  General 
Agent  of  the  General  Assembly  s  Board  of  Rducailon^  (who 
has  declared,  over  his  own  signature,  in  regard  to  this  letter,) 
that  '  it  was  never  expected  to  be  kept  secret ;  it  was  the 
full  understanding  of  the  Committee  that  it  would  be  shortly 
published  in  the  newspapers ;  and  it  would  have  been  pub- 
lished long  ago,  but  it  was  the  v^ish  of  the  Committee  to  call 
the  special  attention  of  a  number  of  those  who  were  known 
in  general,  to  coincide  with  them  in  opinion  to  these  points, 
which  certainly  could  not  have  been  so  well  accomplished 
had  it  appeared  first,  or  simultaneously  in  print.' 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  137 

'*  Here  is  a  distinct  avowal  over  the  name  of  the  Correa- 
ponding  Secretary  and  General  Agent  of  the  General  Assem- 
bhfs  Board  of  Education  that  he,  in  connexion  with  other 
gentlemen,  had  objects  to  be  '  accomplished'  by  a  secret  cir- 
cular, sent  to  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which 
*  could  not  so  VTELL  be  accomplished/  had  the  design  been 
known. 

"  Here  w^e  are  presented  with  a  most  remarkable  fact ;  and 
one  which  demands  and  which  will  receice  the  attention  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  land.  A  secret  letter,  in- 
viting suspicion,  and  crimination,  and  tending  to  the  dismem- 
berment of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  sent  forth  signed  by 
one  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  and  by  the  two, 
and  only  general  Agents  of  the  General  Assembly.  Some 
reflections  of  serious  import  crowd  on  the  mind. 

"  It  is  natural  to  ask  whether  this  is  the  purpose  for  which 
these  gentlemen  were  appointed  to  these  important  offices  ? 
Did  the  General  Assembly  when  it  made  or  sanctioned  these 
appointments  contemplate  this  as  a  part  of  their  duties? 
Did  the  Assembly  suppose  that  they  would  have  either  the 
inclination  or  the  leisure  to  engage  in  plans  contemplating 
the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  ?  Is  this  the  way  in 
which  they  shall  fulfil  their  duties  to  the  body  from  which 
they  have  receiveTl  their  power ;  and  is  this  to  constitute  a 
part  of  their  reports  to  the  next  General  Assembly  ? 

"  Those  gentlemen  are  supported  from  the  funds  of  the 
church,  at  an  annual  expense  of  not  less  than  s'i:c  thousand 
dollars.  Was  that  money  contributed  with  the  expectation 
that  it  would  be  appropriated  to  men  who  would  labor  for  the 
dismemberment  of  the  Church  ?  Did  the  General  Assembly 
of  this  year,  or  of  any  former  year,  make  appropriations  for 
their  salaries  with  the  expectation  that  they  were  sustaining 
men  who  w^ere  secretly  aiming  at  the  division  of  the  Church  ? 
A  delicate  casuist  would  say  that  it  was  a  matter  of  difficult 
solution  to  know  how  they  could  appropriate  time  and  in- 
fluence which  belongs  to  the  entire  Church,  and  which  is  sus- 


138  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

tained  by  tlie  monies  of  the  Church  in  other  purposes  than 
those  contemplating  the  training  of  her  sons  for  the  ministry, 
or  the  extension  of  the  gospel  throughout  the  land.  In  what 
article  of  these  Boards,  or  in  the  '  Plan  for  the  Theological 
Seminary,'  is  it  said  that  the  promotion  of  suspicion  and  schism 
shall  be  a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  incumbents  in  these  offices  ? 
"  Again — These  gentlemen  have  an  official  influence  and 
power.  It  has  been  created  by  the  acts  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  is  the  property  of  the  General  Assembly.  It 
arises  not  from  the  moral  worth  of  these  gentlemen,  how- 
ever great  that  may  be,  but  it  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
Assembly  has  committed  to  them  a  portion  of  its  own  in- 
fluence and  authority.  Did  the  Assembly  design  that  its 
own  influence  should  be  thus  employed  ?  Was  it  to  pro- 
mote division  and  alienation  that  they  were  appointed  to 
these  responsible  offices  ? 

"  There  is  one  other  question.  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  secretaries  and  agents  of  the  Boards  of  the  Assembly 
are  pursuing  a  course  which  is  unknown  to  their  Boards,  or 
which  is  disapproved  by  them  ?  Is  it  not  a  fair  inference 
that  when  the  general  agents  of  their  Boards  become  thus  the 
advocates  of  schism,  and  lend  their  official  influence  to  pro- 
mote it,  that  this  is  the  course  also  which  their  numerous 
subordinate  agents  in  the  churches  are  expected  to  pursue, 
and  which  they  will  advance  ?  But  if  this  be  so,  then  who 
can  follow  and  detect  the  numerous  bad  influences  which  are 
now  already  in  operation,  and  which  have  been  so  long  pur- 
sued that  a  public  stand  may  now  b'::  taken  tending  to  divide 
and  rend  into  fragments  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  ?  If  this  be  the  purpose,  the  action,  and  the 
prostituted  official  influence  of  these  Boards,  is  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  church  consistent  with  their  continued  existence  ? 
Should  the  church  nourish  in  its  own  bosom,  and  sustain  by 
its  own  authority  and  resources,  that  which  is  known  to  be 
employed  to  rend  it  into  fragments  ? 

"  I  ask,  in  conclusion,  is  the  church  always  to  be  harassed 


REAL  GROUNDS  OP  THE  EXCISION.        139 

and  distracted  by  plans  like  this  ?  Six  years  have  rolled 
away  amidst  suspicions,  and  criminations,  and  prosecutions, 
and  plans,  secret  and  public,  to  rend  the  church  in  this  land. 
Plan  after  plan  has  been  tried  and  foiled,  and  yet  invention 
is  not  exhausted.  Suspicion  did  all  it  could.  Crimination 
did  all  it  could.  Prosecution  did  all  it  could.  The  'Act 
and  Testimony'  did  all  it  could.  God  in  mercy  inter- 
posed and  saved  the  church  from  division.  And  now 
official  influence,  and  the  names  of  the  public  officers  of  the 
church  are  doing  what  they  can  secretly  to  accomphsh  the 
same  end ;  to  recover  prostrated  power,  or  to  rend  the 
church  to  fragments.  In  the  mean  time,  revivals  have  ceased, 
and  the  humble  and  the  pious  are  weary  with  these  conten- 
tions, and  the  feeling  of  the  church  at  large  demands  that  the 
ministers  of  religion  should  lay  aside  these  contentions,  and 
give  themselves  to  the  promotion  of  pure  and  undefiled  reli- 
gion. The  church  on  earth,  and  the  church  in  heaven ;  the 
interests  of  religion  everywhere  demand,  that  every  friend  of 
peace  and  unity  should  be  at  his  post ;  should  oppose  these 
efforts  at  division,  and  fix  his  eye  and  heait  on  the  maxim 

of    Paul,    MARK    THEM     WHICH     CAUSE    DIVISIONS,    AND     AVOID 

THEM.  An  Enemy  to  Schism." — Flea  for  Voluntary  iSo- 
cieties,  pages  168--1'74. 

Additional  proof  that  hostility  to  Voluntary  Societies,  and 
a  desire  to  rule  the  Church,  were  the  chief  causes  of  the  acts 
of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  which  rent  the  Church  asunder, 
will  be  found  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  which 
commenced  its  sessions  in  Philadelphia,  the  week  immediate- 
ly preceding  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly.  We  present  our 
readers  with  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  this  body,  as 
contained  in  "  the  Rev.  H.  Wood's  History  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Controversy  :" 

"  CHAPTER  XV. 

''OLD  SCHOOL  CONVENTION  0¥    1837. 

"  This  Convention,  called  by  the  Committee  of  the  Old 
School   party  in  the  Assembly  of  1836,  met  in  Philadelphia 


140        REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

about  a  week  before  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly. 
There  were  more  than  one  hundred  members  in  attendance. 

"  The  first  measure  proposed  in  the  Convention  was,  some 
action  in  reference  to  '  certain  judicatories'  charged  by  com- 
mon fame  with  heresies  and  disorders.  The  Convention  went 
into  a  sort  of  ex-parte  trial  of  certain  bodies.  Common  fame 
was  the  principal  witness.  The  members  were  invited  to 
retail  such  reports  as  had  reached  them.  Various  rumors 
were  communicated.  And  though  the  parties  accused  were 
not  represented,  and  could  make  no  defence,  yet  they  were 
soon  condemned. 

*'  The  Convention,  however,  were  not  agreed  as  to  the  plan 
which  they  should  propose  for  the  Assembly's  adoption. 
Dr.  Blythe  suggested  the  plan  of  citation,  with  a  view  to  ex- 
cision. He  thought  the  course  pursued  by  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky,  in  the  case  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians,  the 
proper  one.  He  said  :  *  Thirty- three  or  four  years  ago,  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky  knew  it  to  be  difficult  to  try  any  man  for 
heresy ;  but  they  appointed  a  Commission  to  visit  the  parts 
where  the  heresy  was  reported  to  exist,  to  inquire  and  report. 
The  suspected  Presbyteries  were  not  allowed  to  sit  in  Synod 
till  the  affair  was  settled.  The  Synod  acted,  cut  off  the  un- 
sound, and  restored  peace  to  the  orthodox.  Why  may  not 
the  next  General  Assembly  do  the  same  thing ?'  'If  this 
course  be  taken,  you  exclude  from  your  judicatories  those 
who  are  charged  with  unsoundness  until  the  affair  is  issued ; 
and  you  gain  two  things — first,  you  put  out  those  who  trou- 
ble you ;  and  second,  you  will  be  prepared  to  administer 
wholesome  admonition  to  the  suspected.  This  course  will 
show  that  you  are  cautious  of  the  character  of  your  brethren. 
You  will  not  impeach  them  till  inquiry  is  made  in  an  orderly 
manner.  But  if  something  of  this  sort  is  not  done,  what  will 
the  world  say  ?' — See  Western  Presbyterian  Herald,  June  1, 
1837. 

"  Dr.  Junkin  offered  a  resolution  :  '  That  the  orthodox 
would  agree  not  to  go  into  the  Assembly,  unless  the  Synod 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  141 

of  the  Western  Reserve  were  excluded.'  *  There  is  common 
fame  enough  to  cut  off  the  Synod  at  the  outset.' — Herald, 
June  1,  1837. 

"  Mr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge  said :  *  All  that  is  proposed,  re- 
fers to  what  the  Assembly  ought  to  do.  We  must  go  to  the 
Assembly.  We  can  do  nothing  here.  I  am  just  where  I 
used  to  be.  I  am  opposed  to  violent  action.  Let  us  do 
nothing  which  cannot  be  fully  justified.  It  is  vain  to  hope 
that  you  can  exclude  the  persons  against  whom  tliese  speech- 
es and  memorials  are  aimed.  There  is  no  power  anywhere 
that  can  do  it.' — Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

"  Dr.  Baxter  said  :  '  In  our  general  views  we  are  unani- 
mous, that  the  purity  of  the  church  is  endangered,  and  that 
something  must  be  done.  But  we  differ  as  to  the  mode  of 
relief.'  *As  to  some  suggestions  of  Dr.  Junkin,  I  cannot 
support  them.  We  have  no  constitutional  authority  here. 
We  meet  merely  to  consult,  in  the  exercise  of  a  proper  right, 
and  to  present  our  views  to  the  General  Assembly.  But  if 
we  take  the  ground  that  we  are  a  part  of  the  judicatories  of 
the  church,  and  proceed  to  excommunicate  our  brethren,  we 
assume  high  judicial  powers  and  array  public  opinion  against 
us.'  *  If  high-handed  and  apparently  unconstitutional  meas- 
ures are  taken,  it  will  greatly  injure  us.  There  is  great  dis- 
trust as  to  the  designs  of  the  orthodox  :  it  is  supposed  that 
the  friends  of  the  constitution  propose  to  alter  the  constitution. 
And  if  the  Convention  resolved  to  set  aside  Synods,  and  ex- 
communicate them,  it  will  injure  us  by  confirming  these  fears.' 
— Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

"  Mr.  Breckinridge  said :  '  The  decision  on  the  Foreign 
Missionary  question  of  the  last  Assembly  was  an  oiitrage  ; 
but  preceding  Assemblies  had  already  implied  the  same 
decision  to  refuse  a  Presbyterian  organization.  All  the  great 
principles  that  are  developed  in  our  system  were  intrenched 
on  years  ngo  as  fully  as  now.'  *  Let  it  be  recollected  too, 
that  to  (jtt  fqjart  from  the  unsound,  is  not  the  only  thing  to 
be  done.     It  must  not  be  done  on  the  principles  which  may 


142       REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

destroy  ourselves.'  *I  have  asked  a  hundred  brethren, 
'  what  is  your  view  of  getting  apart?'  Yet  not  one  has  given 
me  a  clear,  distinct,  detailed  statement  which  he  was  willing 
to  adopt.' — Herald,  June  1,  1837. 

"  Mr.  Musgrave  said  :  *  I  wonder  that  there  is  any  call  for 
facts.  If  any  man  is  in  darkness,  let  him  read  Barnes'  Notes 
and  the  Christian  Spectator,  and  read  the  doctrines  which 
are  recorded  there.  Let  him  also  turn  to  the  Voluntary  As- 
sociations ;  I  call  them  not  benevolent,  but  party  engines.' 
*  But  we  forget  the  machiner}'-  that  is  at  work  against  us, 
manufacturing  and  sending  out  ministers  so  rapidly,  that  ^f 
we  simply  wait,  discuss  and  do  not  act,  in  twelve  months  our 
case  will  be  entirely  hopeless.  Some  of  our  brethren  are  al- 
ready clear  that  the  present  state  of  things  is  no  longer  tole- 
rable. They  will  have  a  reform  or  separation.'  '  What  then 
is  to  be  done  with  such  men,  who  are  false  and  deceivers  ? 
We  cannot  live  with  them — we  can  have  no  peace  with  them 
— they  are  in  opposition  to  our  principles  and  policy,  and  to 
moral  honesty.  That  we  must  get  apart  is  clear.  Mr. 
Breckinridge  says  we  must  not  take  a  step  in  the  dark.  But 
can  we  not  legislate  conditionally,  and  take  the  first  step 
that  is  clear  ?  Is  not  the  course  plain  ?  If  we  have  the 
power,  as  I  hope  we  shall  have — although  I  am  not  very 
sanguine — is  it  not  clear  that  men  who  teach  doctrines  con- 
fessedly at  variance  with  our  standards  must  be  cut  off,  and 
the  institutions  which  divide  and  ruin  us  must  be  destroyed  ? 
This  is  clear.  Let  us  then  determine  that  those  bodies  which 
are  corrupt  shall  be  arraigned  and  tried.  My  plan  would  be 
to  cite  them,  bring  them  to  your  bar,  get  a  Committee  to 
present  the  facts  to  the  next  Assembly,  and  you  exclude 
them  from  all  power  till  the  issue  is  settled.'  '  But  suppose 
we  have  not  a  majority  in  the  next  General  Assembly. 
There  are  two  propositions  which  may  be  made.  1.  We 
may  propose  an  amicable  division.  Let  us  try  our  brethren 
who  say  they  love  peace  and  are  tired  of  war,  and  that  it  is 
destructive  of  revivals — except  about  two  months  before  the 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        143 

meeting  of  the  General  Assembly.  Well,  we  say  so  too. 
We  are  sick  and  weary  of  their  falseness  and  their  assaults, 
we  want  rest.  2.  But  suppose  we  cannot  divide  amicably. 
Although  we  cannot  see  at  first  what  to  do,  we  must  look 
about  for  light.  I  come  to  ask  you,  and  God  the  Father  of 
lights  :  let  us  look  to  him  in  prayer.  Let  us  settle  this,  that 
if  the  New  School  have  the  majority  in  the  next  Assembly, 
we  are  a  dead  minority — not  an  accidental  minorit}^  but 
we  never  shall  be  a  majority.  If  the  last  Assembly  and 
other  Assembhes  have  not  brought  up  the  church  to  secure 
a  majority,  all  hope  is  gone.  Yom*  opponents  multiply  like 
frogs.  They  educate,  license,  and  settle  men  faster  than  you 
can  do.  But  if  the  next  Assembly  be  Old  School,  what  shall 
we  do  ?  If  reform  be  impossible,  the  imperative  alternative 
is  separation.'  '  Let  us  cling  together  and  strive  for  victory, 
or  fall  in  the  effort.' — Herald,  June  1,  1S37. 

"  It  will  be  seen  from  the  debates  in  the  Convention,  that 
the  members  aimed  at  one  of  two  things  :  reform  or  separa- 
tion. And  from  the  debates  it  will  be  seen  what  was  meant 
by  reform.  It  was  to  secure  to  the  Old  School  a  majority, 
and  effectually  to  put  the  New  School  in  the  minority.  J\Ir. 
Musgrave  says  :  *  If  the  last  Assembly  and  other  Assemblies 
have  not  brought  jip  the  church  to  secure  a  majority,  all 
hope  is  gone.'  The  reader  of  this  portion  of  the  history  of 
the  church  cannot  fail  to  see  that  a  2^^^^nianent  majority  for 
the  Old  School  was,  with  one  portion  of  the  Convention,  the 
lead ingf object  in  this  business  of  *  reform.^  *  Let  us  settle 
this  point,  that  if  the  New  School  have  the  majority  in  the 
next  Assembly,  we  are  a  dead  minority — not  an  accidental 
minority,  but  im  shall  never  he  a  majority.''  Whether  such 
measures,  on  the  part  of  a  minority,  to  gain  the  ascendency, 
is  not  a  reform  tliat  needs  to  be  reformed,  is  a  question  to  be 
decided  by  the  irapartiil  reader. 

''  Whilst  some  would  have  beer  satisfied  with  a  permanent 
majority,  others  would  not  have  been  content  with  anything 
short  of  a  division   of  the  church.     Mr.  Breckinridsce  was 


144  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

clear  that  the  church  ought  to  'get  apart.'  Dr.  Junkin 
urged  that :  '  That  Convention  never  would  have  been 
called,  but  for  the  purpose  of  separating  the  Pelagians 
(the  Dr's.  name  for  New  School)  from  the  sound  part  of  the 
church.' 

"  But  this  policy  was  not  urged  by  all.  '  Dr.  Blythe  spoke 
at  some  length  in  opposition  to  measures  of  separation.  He 
wanted  to  contend — was  opposed  to  cutting  off  any  Synod 
till  tried.'— Herald,  June  1,  ISSY. 

"  Dr.  Junkin  said  :  '  We  ought  to  have  some  plan.  We 
must  not  count  on  a  majority  ;  let  us  have  some  settled  prin- 
ciples. Do  not  trust  a  New  School  majority  to  arraign  and 
cut  off  New  School  men,  and  New  School  Presbyteries.  If 
we  have  a  majority  we  can  do  what  we  please  ;  and  we  know 
what  we  shall  do.'  *  We  must  be  prepared  for  amputation, 
diflficult  and  painful  as  it  is.' 

**  The  Convention  found  it  difficult  to  agree  upon  a  plan 
for  action,  provided  they  should  be  a  minority  in  the  Assem- 
bly. Dr.  Junkin  urged  the  Convention  in  such  a  case,  '  at 
once  to  bring  in  its  ultimatum  and  say — we  are  determined 
as  one  man,  that  unless  this  reform  is  immediately  effected, 
we  will  cut  you  off.  We  are  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  you 
are  not,  but  are  undermining  its  foundations.' 

"  Dr.  Blythe's  plan  savored  a  little  more  of  modesty.  He 
hoped,  '  that  if  the  orthodox  were  in  a  minority  in  the  As- 
sembly, they  would  rise  in  a  body,  leave  the  house,  and  go 
on  with  the  business  of  the  church.' 

"  Mr.  Breckinridge  seemed  not  to  be  pleased  with  any 
one's  plan  but  his  own,  if  plan  he  had.  He  said :  *  We  need 
not  detail  plans  for  the  General  Assembly  ;  I  will  not  agree 
to  make  the  Moderator  the  Dictator  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. I  will  go  as  far  as  any  one  for  sound  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine and  order.  But  not  for  measures  unsonstitutional,  such 
as  the  exclusion  of  any  body  regularly  commissioned  to  the 
General  Assembly.' 

*'  After  five  or  six  days  had  been  spent  by  the  Convention 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        146 

in  a  wide  range  of  discussion,  Dr.  Wilson,  from  the  business 
committee,  *  presented  a  resolution,  declaring  that  in  case 
the  Assembly  shall  not  take  measures  for  reform,  this  Con- 
vention will  proceed  to  ulterior  and  decisive  measures.' 

"  Dr.  Junkin  suggested,  *  that  the  resolution  was  too  un- 
defined. It  does  not  state  what  measures  we  shall  take,  nor 
when.' 

"  Mr.  Musgrave  said,  *  We  are  not  yet  prepared  to  say 
what  measures  we  will  adopt.  We  must  wait  till  we  see  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly.  If  we  proceed  now  to  say 
what  that  action  ought  to  be,  we  shall  be  greatly  divided  in 
opinion,  and  cannot  agree  in  anything  to  be  determined  upon. 
It  will  moreover  be  very  injudicious  in  us  to  present  a  re- 
quest to  the  Assembly  for  important  reforms,  and  dictate  to 
thera  by  threats  what  they  shall  do.'  * 

"  Dr.  Junkin  thought  that  *  definite,  decided  action,  was 
the  thing  now  to  be  resolved  on.'  He  moved  to  amend,  by 
appending  to  the  resolution  the  words,  *  for  separating  the 
Pelagians  and  anti- Presbyterian  party  from  the  Presbyterian 
Church.' 

"  *  Dr.  Wilson  objected  to  the  word  *  Pelagian,'  in  the 
amendment.  In  all  the  charges  for  false  doctrine  which  he 
had  framed,  he  had  never  accused  any  man  of  Pelagianism. 
There  is  a  great  deal  of  semi-Pelagianism  and  Arminianism 
in  the  church  ;  but  if  there  be  Pelagianism  I  do  not  know  it. 
If  the  amendment  be  adopted,  I  shall  insist  on  determining 
the  modus  operandi  of  the  separation.  This  is  the  last  Conven- 
tion I  shall  ever  attend  if  I  live  to  fourscore.  But  I  mean  to 
know  before  I  leave  this  Convention  what  the  Old  School  are 
to  do.' 

"  Mr.  Brown  said  :  '  I  will  not  consent  to  menace  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  It  is  utterly  out  of  place  for  us  to  decide  for 
the  Assembly  and  dictate  to  them.' 

*'  Dr.  Baxter  said  :  '  I  am  not  prepared  for  revolutionary 
measures.  To  attempt  such  would  be  usurpation  in  us. 
Even  if  we  proclaim  division,  and  the  church  sustains  us, 


146  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

and  a  new  General  Assembly  is  formed  out  of  the  orthodox 
portion  of  the  church,  still  the  whole  afifair  has  a  most  irregu- 
lar orif^in.' 

"  In  the  discussions  of  the  general  questions  of  Reform  or 
Separation,  a  multiplicity  of  subjects  was  introduced — the 
heresies  and  disorders  of  certain  bodies,  plans  of  union,  Con- 
gregationahsm,  Hopkinsianism,  New  Havenism,  Abolition, 
Slavery,  Voluntary  Societies,  &c. 

*'  The  debate  on  a  resolution  to  discountenance  the  Home 
Missionary  and  Education  Societies  showed  the  feeling  of  the 
Convention  in  reference  to  other  voluntary  societies. 

**  Mr.  Breckinridge  moved  to  amend  by  adding  *  that  other 
voluntary  societies,  and  especially  the  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  be  requested  to  use 
greater  caution  in  respect  to  the  interference  by  their  agents, 
in  the  controversies  of  the  Presbyterian  church.'  '  I  mean 
this,'  said  Mr.  Breckinridge,  '  as  an  indictment  of  the  Am.  B. 
C.  F.  Missions.' 

"  Mr.  Pkimer  said :  *  There  has  been  no  evidence  furnished 
to  my  mind  that  the  bodies  here  aimed  at  have  done  wrong. 
The  improprieties  are  the  improprieties  of  the  agents.' 

•'  Mr.  Smyth  of  Charleston,  said  :  *  If  the  language  of  the 
amendment  be  right,  as  respects  the  Am.  B.  C.  F.  Missions, 
it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  agents  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society,  (Old  School,)  for  the  agents  of  that 
Board  have  inteifered  with  us.' 

"  Mr.  Engles  said  :  '  In  the  station  which  I  occupy,  I  have 
had  access  to  a  number  of  facts  illustrating  the  influence  of 
Voluntary  Associations  on  the  controversies  of  the  Presby- 
terian church.  All  of  them,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  have 
meddled.  Yet  I  think  the  introduction  of  this  amendment 
unhappy ;  it  has  consumed  time,  and  excited  unpleasant  feel- 
ing. Notwithstanding  the  explanations  that  have  been  given 
of  this  amendment,  it  implies  strong  censure.  Of  all  the  so- 
cieties meant  to  be  reached  by  it,  the  Am.  Board  I  believe  to 
be  the  least  obnoxious  to  such  a  charge.  I  could  state  facts 
which  would  show  the  Sunday  School  Union  and  the  Tract 


REAL    GROUlXDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  147 

Society  are  much  more  so,  if  they  are  to  be  held  responsible 
for  the  doino;s  of  their  accents.' 

"  The  Convention  at  la:st  agreed  upon  a  Memorial  to  the 
General  Assembly.  It  was  presented  to  the  Convention  by 
Mr.  Breckinridge,  the  author  of  the  Act  and" Testimony,  and 
is  much  in  character  with  that  document,  though  prepared 
with  more  caution.  It  treats,  1.  'In  relation  to  doctrine.'  2. 
*  In  relation  to  church  order.'  3.  '  In  relation  to  discipline.' 
4.  'Method  of  Reform." — Wood's  History  of  the  Fresby- 
terian  Conlroversy,  pages  101-108. 

The  documentary  evidence  of  a  spirit  of  intolerance  and 
determination  to  govern  the  church  on  the  part  of  our 
exscinding  brethren  may  be  summed  up  in  few  words. 
They  have  departed  from  the  tolerant  principles  and 
spirit  of  American  Presbyterianism  as  set  forth  in  the  adop- 
ting act  of  1729,  by  requiring  an  assent  to  all  the  minute 
details  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  according  to  their  inter- 
pretation of  its  language.  By  the  Act  and  Testimony,  sent 
out  in  1834,  by  the  acts  of  the  Convention  in  Pittsburg, 
the  ensuing  May,  the  secret  circular  and  pamphlet,  sent  out 
by  "  the  Confidential  Committee,"  appointed  at  the  secret 
meeting,  held  in  the  Rev.  Mr.  Blythe's  church  in  Pittsburg 
in  1 836,  and  by  the  Convention  held  in  Philadelphia  in  1 837, 
the  ruling  spirits  of-the  revolutionists,' have  furnished  a  mass 
of  evidence,  which  it  would  require  no  small  amount  of 
prejudice  and  credulity  to  set  aside,  of  their  determination 
to  prevent  the  operation  of  the  Voluntary  Societies  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  govern  her  counsels.  These  were 
unquestionably  the  real  reasons  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly 
of  1837,  which  rent  the  church  asunder.  The  truth  of  this 
statement  is  fully  established  by  their  own  admissions  and 
avowed  purposes. 

In  1831,  soon  after  the  unavaihng  effort  to  prevent  the 
settlement  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  over  the  1st  Presby- 
terian Church  in  Philadelphia,  Doct.  Green  published  three 
numbers  in  "  the  Christian  Advocate,"  entitled,  "  The  Present 
State  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."    In  the  first  number  we 


148      REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

find  the  following  language  :  "  We  speak  what  we  firmly 
believe,  when  we  say,  that  unless  in  the  passing  year,  there 
is  a  general  waking  up  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  to  a 
sense  of  their  danger  and  their  duty,  iheir  injiuence  in  the 
General  Assembly  \i'A\  forever  afterward  be  subordinate,  and 
under ^  control ;  and  we  are  willing  that  all  parties  should 
know  that  such  is  our  con\action."  There  is  no  ambiguity 
in  this  language.  It  is  a  frank  admission  on  the  part  of 
the  writer  that  the  chief  ground  of  his  fears  respecting  the 
church  was,  that  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  were  about  to 
lose  forever  their  controlling  influence  in  the  Assembly. 

In  his  second  number  he  complains  that  "  preconcerted 
operations  and  arrangements  "  had  been  made  by  those 
whom  he  opposed,  to  secure  a  majority  in  the  Assembly,  and 
at  the  same  time  admits  that  his  own  party  had  done  the 
same  thing.  He  says,  "  They  had  themselves  made  some 
exertions  to  secure  a  return  of  such  members  to  the  Assem- 
bly as  they  believed  would  favor  their  cause ;  and  they  did 
not  doubt  that  their  opponents  had  done  the  same.  But 
that  such  an  extended,  active,  and  systematic  combination 
had  been  entered  into  against  them,  was  as  perfectly  unknown 
and  unapprehended^by  them,  till  it  began  to  develop  itself  in 
the  choice  of  a  Moderator,  as  if  the  thing  had  been  itself  an  im- 
possibility. In  military  phrase,  they  had  been  completely  out- 
generalled,  and  were  taken  perfectly  by  surprise." 

Were  this  statement  accordant  with  fact,  unless  the  Doc- 
tor were  prepared  to  condemn  his  own  party  for  the  exer- 
tions which  he  admits  they  made  to  secure  a  majority  in  the 
Assembly,  we  see  not  for  what  those  whom  he  so  severely 
censures  merit  his  crimination,  unless  it  be  that  they  made 
greater  exertions  and  succeeded.  It  would  seem  that  in  the 
Doctor's  judgment,  it  was  not  the  nature,  but  the  amount  of 
the  exertion,  which  they  made,  for  which  he  condemned 
them.  Their  sin,  in  his  estimation,  seems  to  have  consisted 
in  the  fact  that  they  put  forth  an  amount  of  effort  which  de- 
feated that  made  by  his  own  party.  This  is  a  species  of 
casuistry  to  which  we  are  not  prepared  to  subscribe.     The 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION.  149 

fact,  however,  is,  that  no  such  combmation  as  that  of  which 
the  Doctor  speaks  had  been  formed.  The  "  ministers  sup- 
posed to  be  imphcated  by  him  and  by  the  circular  of  the 
Central  Committee,"  published  a  declaration  over  their  own 
signatures,  in  which  they  say,  "  We  think  it,  therefore,  our 
duty  to  the  Church  and  to  ourselves,  hereby  solemnly  to  de- 
clare that  no  one  of  us  knew  of  any  preconcerted  plan  or 
effort  designed  to  affect  the  members,  the  character,  or  the 
measures  of  the  last  Assembly." 

We  have  before  stated  our  belief  that  the  controversy  re- 
specting doctrine  had  less  to  do  in  rending  the  Church  asun- 
der than  that  which  related  to  the  best  means  of  giving  the 
Gospel  to  the  world.  To  this  fact,  the  leaders  in  the  so- 
called  measures  of  reform  give  their  decided  testimony.  The 
Doctor,  in  his  second  number  on  the  state  of  the  Church, 
when  speaking  of  the  special  cause  of  the  excitement  in  the 
Assembly  of  1831,  says,  "It  is  not  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes. 
That  case  was  indeed  made  an  adjunct  and  auxiliary  of  the 
principal  cause ;  but  the  cause  itself,  the  baneful  apple  of 
discord,  which  has  been  thrown  into  the  midst  of  us,  is  the 
inflexible  purpose  and  untiring  effort  of  the  Corresponding 
Secretary  and  General  Agent  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society  to 
amalgamate  the  Board  of  Missions  of  the  General  Assembly 
with  that  Society.*^  Subsequently  he  remarks,  "  In  stating 
the  immediate  exciting  causes  of  the  lamentable  divisions, 
controversies,  and  alienations,  which  mark  the  present  state 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  we  should  not  do  justice  to  the 
subject,  if  we  did  not  set  down  as  the  most  effective  of  all, 
the  plans,  and  measures,  and  demands  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Soci- 
ety, and  the  interference  of  its  members,  both  in  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  and  out  of  it,  with  the  Board  of  Missions 
formed  and  sustained  by  that  judicatory,  and  directly  re- 
sponsible to  it  for  all  its  transactions." 

In  July  of  the  same  year.  Dr.  Green  and  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Engles,  Potts,  and  Winchester,  and  Messrs.  M.  L.  Bevan,  S. 
Allen,  and  F,  Learning,  elders,  sent  out  a  circular  to  the 
7 


150       REAL  GROUND'S  OF  THE  EXCISION. 

Churches,  the  object  of  which,  they  say,  was  to  rouse  them 
"  to  a  just  sense  of  then-  danger  and  their  duty."  In  this 
circular  they  say,  "  Our  Board  of  Education  and  Board  of 
Missions  must  both  receive  a  hberal  patronage  and  a  decided 
support.  This  is  essential — without  this  we  are  undone. 
The  voluntary  associations  that  seek  to  engross  the  patron- 
age of  the  Church,  and  have  already  engrossed  a  large  part 
of  it,  have  taken  the  start  of  us  in  the  all-important  concerns 
of  education  and  of  missions.  They  now  labor  to  get  the 
whole  of  these  into  their  own  hands,  well  knowing  that  if 
this  be  eflfected,  they  will  infallibly,  in  a  very  short  time, 
govern  the  Church ;  for  education  furnishes  missionaries, 
and  missionaries  become  pastors,  and  pastors  with  their 
ruling  elders  form  Church  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  Synods, 
and  General  Assemblies.  Our  Education  and  Missionary 
Boards,  therefore,  we  repeat,  must  be  sustained — must  be 
promptly,  and  liberally,  and  efficiently  patronized,  or  our 
Church  is  gone.  We  must  take  from  others,  so  far  as  it  is 
necessary,  to  give  to  these ;  and  we  ought  to  regard  it  as  a 
sacred  duty  to  withhold  our  aid  from  all  institutions  that 
seek  to  supplant  or  to  rival  these." 

In  1831  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson,  of  Cincinnati,  attempted  to 
establish  four  propositions,  as  before  stated,  against  the 
claims  of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  the  last  of  which  is  in  these 
words :  "  That  the  A.  H.  M.  Society,  by  interference  and  im- 
portunity, disturbs  the  peace  and  injures  the  prosperity  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church."  His  professed  attempt  to  sup- 
port this  proposition,  he  closes  by  saying,  "Families  are 
divided,  churches  are  divided,  and  ministers  who  once  labored 
together  as  true  yoke-fellows,  now  shun  each  other's  society. 
This  American  Home  is  to  Presbyterians  what  Campbellism 
is  to  the  Baptists.  And  he  who  can  affirm  that  the  opera- 
tions of  this  society  have  not  disturbed  the  peace  and  injured 
the  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian  Chiu'ch,  may  as  easily  say 
that  the  morning  was  never  spread  upon  the  mountains — 
that  the  sun  never  shone  at  noon."     These  statements  he 


REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE  EXCISION.  151 

follows  with  tliG  remark,  "  The  origin,  organization,  and  op- 
erations of  the  A.  H.  M.  Society  prove  clearly  to  me  that 
the  overthrow  of  Presbyterianism,  as  it  now  exists,  is  a  lead- 
ing object  with  those  who  understand  the  whole  scheme." 

In  the  Convention,  held  in  Philadelphia,  May,  1837,  Mr. 
Musgrave,  when  speaking  of  the  Voluntary  Societies,  said : 
**  I  call  them  not  benevolent,  but  party  engines.  But  wc 
forget  the  machinery  that  is  at  work  against  us,  manufactur- 
ing and  sending  out  ministers  so  rapidly,  that  if  we  simply 
wait,  discuss,  and  do  not  act  in  twelve  months,  our  case  will 
be  entirely  hopeless.  Some  of  our  brethren  are  already 
clear  that  the  present  state  of  things  is  no  longer  tolerable. 
They  will  have  a  reform  or  separation.  Is  it  not  clear  that 
the  institutions,  which  divide  and  ruin  us,  must  be  destroy- 
ed ?"* 

"  The  debate  on  a  resolution  to  discountenance  the  Home 
Missionary  and  Education  Societies  showed  the  feelings  o-f 
the  Convention  in  reference   to  other  Voluntary  Societies, 

"  Mr.  Breckinridge  moved  to  amend  by  adding  *  that  other 
Voluntary  Societies,  and  especially  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  Missions, 
be  requested  to  use  greater  caution  in  respect  to  the  inter- 
ferexice  by  their  agents,  in  the  conti-oversies  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  I  mean  this,'  said  Mr.  Breckinridge,  '  as  an 
indictment  of  the- A.  B.  C.  F.  Missions.'  "f 

In  the  pamphlet  sent  out  by  the  "  Confidential  Commit- 
tee" appointed  at  the  recent  meeting  held  in  Mr.  Blythe's 
Church  in  Pittsburg,  they  say  expressly — "  whatever  else 
may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  we  cannot  continue  in  the  same 
hoihj.  In  some  way  or  other,  therefore,  these  men  must  be 
separated  from  us." 

Mr.  Witherspoon,  the  Moderator  of  the  Assembly,  when 
returning  from  the  meeting  at  which  the  Confidential  Com- 
mittee just  alluded  to  was  appointed,  *'  remarked  to  a  gen- 
tleman who  accosted  him  on  the  subject  of  the  meeting, 

*n.  Wood's  History^  page  106, 
f  Ibid,  page  107. 


152       REAL  GROUNDS  OP  THE  EXCISION. 

*  the  die  is  cast ;  the  Church  is  to  be  divided,'  Since  that, 
a  letter  from  Mr.  Witherspoon  has  been  seen,  which  ex- 
presses the  same  sentiment."* 

After  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  of  1836,  the  papers, 
which  were  in  the  interests  of  the  party,  openly  advoca,ted 
the  division  of  the  Church.  ''  The  editor  of  the  Western 
Presbyterian  Herald,  (3d  Nov.,  1836),  speaking  as  though 
division  was  certain,  says  :  *  As  to  which  way  the  work  will 
go,  surely  when  intruders  have  disturbed  our  house,  and 
will  neither  come  to  order,  nor  quietly  leave  us,  upon  mutual 
agreement,  ive  will  inU  them  out  as  soon  as  we  are  strong 
enough  ;  and  the  signs  of  the  times  are  beginning  to  inti- 
mate, that  this  may  be  sooner  than  any  of  us  expected  a 
little  while  ago."f 

**  A  Correspondent"  of  the  Presbyterian,  in  speaking  of 
the  object  of  the  Convention,  to  meet  in  Philadelphia,  May, 
1837,  said  :  "  Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  pre- 
cise object  for  which  it  is  called,  is  to  effect  a  division  of  the 
Church,  and  to  dehberate  on  the  manner  of  accomplishing 
that  great  and  noble  work.  "J 

*'  The  Assembly  of  1837,  after  the  excision,  in  their  Pas- 
toral Letter,  say :  *  Discerning  men  have  perceived,  for  a 
number  of  years,  that  the  affairs  of  our  beloved  Church 
were  hastening  to  a  crisis,  and  when  the  members  of  the 
present  Assembly  came  together,  the  state  of  the  parties 
was  such,  as  to  make  it  manifest  that  a  division  of  the 
Church  was  the  most  desirable  object  that  could  be  ef- 
fected."'§ 

In  the  Convention  of  1837,  Mr.  Musgrave  said  :  "Let  us 
settle  this,  that  if  the  New  School  have  the  majority  in  the 
next  Assembly,  we  are  a  dead  minority. — If  the  last  Assem- 
bly, and  other  Assemblies,  have  not  brough  t  up  the  Church 
to  secure  a  majority,  all  hope  is  gone. — If  the  next  Assem- 

*Plea  for  Voluntary  Societies,  page  1G7. 
f  H.  Wood's  History,  page  90. 

X  Ibid,  page  97.  §  Ibid,  page  98. 


REAL  GROUNDS  OF  THE  EXCISION.        153 

bly  be  Old  School,  what  shall  we  do  ?  If  reform  be  im- 
possible, the  imperative  alternative  is  separation.  Let  us 
chng  together  and  strive  for  victory,  or  fall  in  the  effort."* 

'*  Dr.  Junkin  said:  *We  must  not  count  on  a  majority ; 
let  us  have  some  settled  principles.  Do  not  trust  a  New 
School  majority  to  arraign  and  cut  off  New  School  men  and 
New  School  Presbyteries.  If  we  have  a  majority,  we  can 
do  what  we  please ;  and  we  know  what  we  shall  do,  we 
must  be  prepared  for  amputation,  difficult  and  painful  as 
it  is.' " 

"  The  Convention  found  it  difficult  to  agree  upon  a  plan 
of  action,  provided  they  should  be  a  minority  in  the  Assem- 
bly. Dr.  Junkin  urged  the  Convention  in  such  a  case,  *  at 
once  to  bring  in  its  ultimatum,  and  say — we  are  determined 
as  one  man,  that  unless  this  reform  is  immediately  effected, 
we  will  cut  you  off.  We  are  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  you 
are  not,  but  are  undermining  its  foundations.'  "f 

The  Rev.  R.  L.  Breckinridge,  in  the  course  of  the  debate 
in  the  Assembly  upon  the  resolutions  to  cut  off  the  four 
Synods,  made  the  frank  avowal,  in  these  or  words  of  the 
same  import,  "Moderator,  I  am  aware  the'  Constitution 
makes  no  provision  for  acts  like  these ;  but  the  fact  is,  we 
have  the  power  in  our  hands  now,  and  we  must  use  it,  for 
the  Church  will  never  give  it  to  us  ao-ain."  This  is  a  frank 
admission  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  measure  ;  that  if 
carried,  it  would  be  an  act  of  mere  arbitrary  power. 

Admitting  what  the  fathers  and  brethren  whose  language 
we  have  just  quoted,  have  said  respecting  their  zeal  for  the 
purity  of  the  Church,  from  their  own  admissions  it  is  evident 
the  chief  ground  of  their  solicitude,  was  the  fear  that  the 
influence  of  their  party  was  ever  after  to  be  subordinate — 
that  they  would  "be  a  dead  minority,"  unless  something 
were  immediately  done  to  prevent  so  dire  a  calamity.  In 
order  to  avert  it,  and  secure  the  power  for  which  they  were 
laboring,  they  deemed  it  indispensable  that  the  operation  of 
*II.  Wood's  History,  page  104.  f  Ibid,  page  105. 


154  REAL    GROUNDS    OF    THE    EXCISION. 

the  voluntary  societies  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  should 
cease.  To  ensure  this,  they  resolved  by  some  means  or 
other,  to  rid  themselves  of  a  sufficient  number  of  the  friends 
of  these  institutions,  to  secure  and  perpetuate  the  power  of 
their  party  and  secure  to  their  favorite  organizations  the 
entire  patronage  of  the  Church.  This  is  what  Constitutional 
Presbyterians  have  uniformly  said  was  the  real  ground  of 
those  revolutionary  and  unrighteous  acts,  which  rent  the 
Church  asunder.  We  hope  we  shall  no  longer  be  censured 
for  believing  what  is  fully  attested  by  leading  men  of  their 
own  party. 


MEASURES    TAKEN     BY   THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   PORTION   OF   THE     CUURCH   TO 
PRESERVE     ITS     INTEGRITY,    AND     PREVENT     THE     ORGANIZATION     OF     AN 

IRREGULAR    ASSEMBLY. THEY   SUCCEEDED   IN   ORGANIZING   IT   IN  STRICT 

ACCORDANCE   "WITH   THE   PRINCIPLES    OF   THE   CONSTITUTION. 

To  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  of  1838,  both  the  ex- 
scinders  and  iheiv  adherents,  and  the  exscinded,  and  those 
who  were  resolved  to  do  their  utmost  to  redress  their  griev- 
ances, looked  forward  with  interest.  By  both  parties  it  was 
well  understood  that  the  manner  of  its  organization  must 
decide  whether  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  by  which 
the  four  Synods  were  declared  out  of  the  church,  and  the 
Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  was  dissolved,  were  to  be 
sanctioned,  and  the  church  permanently  divided,  or  this  sad 
catastrophe  prevented,  and  the  exscinded  restored  to  the 
position  which  they  had  previously  occupied.  The  Assembly 
which  thrust  them  out,  left  nothinor  within  the  limit  of  their 
ability  unattempted  for  carrying  out  their  revolutionary  and 
unrighteous  measures.  That  this  statement  may  be  made 
intelligible  to  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  method  of 
making  out  the  roll  of  the  Assembly,  preparatory  to  its  or- 
ganization, it  may  be  proper  to  state  that  the  commissions 
are  required  to  be  put  into  the  hands  of  the  clerks,  who  are 
a  committee  to  receive  them,  and  enter  the  names  of  the 
commissioners  upon  the  roll  of  the  Assembly.  The  Assem- 
bly of  1S37  required  and  obtained  a  pledge  from  this  com- 
mittee that  in  making  out  the  roll  of  the  commissioners  to  con- 


156  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

stitute  the  Assembly  of  1838,  they  would  omit  the  names  of 
those  from  the  Presbyteries  within  the  bounds  of  the  exscinded 
Synods.  This,  the  constitutional  party,  were  resolved,  if 
possible,  to  prevent.  Beheving  the  excision  of  the  Synods 
to  have  been  an  act  of  arbitrary  power,  in  direct  contravention 
of  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  they  de- 
termined to  omit  nothing  which  they  could  do  with  pro- 
priety, to  secure  to  the  Commissioners  from  the  Presbyteries 
within  the  bounds  of  the  disowned  Synods,  seats  in  the  As- 
sembly. Of  this,  unpropitious  as  were  tlie  circumstances, 
they  did  not  despair.  They  knew  there  were  many  excellent 
men  who,  in  church  polity  and  doctrinal  views,  were  sub- 
stantially agreed  with  the  exscinders,  who,  nevertheless,  dis- 
approved of  their  exscinding  acts.  These,  it  was  hoped, 
would  put  forth  some  effort  to  procure  their  repeal.  It  was 
also  hoped,  some  who  voted,  and  others  who  at  first  at- 
tempted to  vindicate  those  acts,  after  a  year's  reflection, 
would  see  and  acknowledge  their  error,  and  "  bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance."  Such  were  the  hopes  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention  at  Auburn,  New  York,  in  Aug., 
1837.  The  first  paragraph  of  their  circular  letter  "  to  the 
Judicatories,  Ministers,  and  Members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,"  is  in  these  words  : 

**  Brethren,  beloved  in  the  Lord  : 
"  You  will  perceive  from  the  published  minutes  of  the 
Convention,  that  we  have  come  mianimously  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  integrity  of  our  church  is  not  to  be  despaired  of, 
and  that  the  apprehended  evils  of  division  on  tlie  one  hand, 
and  the  hope  of  deliverance  on  the  other,  together  with  our 
solemn  vows  to  seek  her  prosperity,  demand  our  united  en- 
deavors to  restore  her  peace,  and  perpetuate  her  unity.  This 
result  has  been  obtained  after  much  deliberation  and  prayer, 
and  the  ^consideration  of  many  documents  and  letters  from 
different  and  distant  sections  of  the  church,  indicative  of  a 
very  extensive  and  increasing  disapprobation  of  those  acts  of 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  157 

the  late  General  Assemblyj  of  wliicli  "we  complain,  as  unjust 
and  oppressive." 

The  concluding  language  of  this  letter  is  equally  pacific 
and  hopeful  with  that  with  which  it  commences.  They  say, 
— "  In  a  representation  of  the  whole  church,  by  such  men  as 
the  exigencies  of  her  danger  may  convene,  we  cannot  doubt 
that  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  the  preference  of  the  two 
great  divisions  of  the  church,  may  be  amicably  adjusted. 
Nor  do  we  believe  it  to  be  true  that  wounds  have  been  in- 
flicted which  cannot  be  healed,  or  alienations  created  which 
cannot  be  reconciled.  For  though  we  have  been  tried  by 
each  other's  language,  our  temptations  and  sins  have  not, 
we  trust,  vacated  our  confidence  in  each  other's  Christian 
character,  or  created  the  ranklings  of  a  personal  hostility,  or 
obliterated  the  remembrance  of  those  years  of  prosperity 
through  which  some  of  us  have  travelled  from  early  life  to 
gray  hairs,  and  the  verge  of  heaven.  And  we  cannot  be 
willing  that  a  revolutionary  revulsion  of  the  church,  so  late 
in  time,  and  so  near  the  church's  glorious  day,  should  go 
down  in  such  dark  imagery  upon  the  page  of  her  history. 
We  entreat,  therefore,  the  judicatories  of  the  church  to  send 
to  the  next  Assembly  those  who  will  reverse  the  revolu- 
tionary action  begun,  and  by  the  favor  of  heaven,  once  more 
pacificate  the  church.  But  should  our  efforts  to  restore  the 
harmonious  action  of  our  church  be  unavailing,  it  will  be  a 
melancholy  pleasure  worth  preserving,  to  reflect  that  we 
have  done  what  we  could.  Moreover,  if  the  church  must 
divide,  it  is  still  important  that  our  common  Christianity,  and 
our  institutions  of  civil  liberty,  should  be  rescued  from  the 
peril  and  disgrace  of  a  violent  division,  and  that  under  auspi- 
ces different  from  those  that  ruled  in  the  hour  of  her  calam- 
ity, she  may  be  peaceably  and  amicably  divided." 

In  accordance  with  the  views  presented  in  these  extracts, 

from  the  circular  letter  of  the  Auburn  Convention,  and  for 

the  purpose  of  securing  the  objects  at  which  they  aimed,  on 

the  Monday  evening  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  General 

7^ 


158  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

Assscmbly,  a  Convention  met  in  the  First  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  for  consultation  and 
prayer.  The  evening  was  spent  in  devotional  exercises,  in 
the  presence  of  a  large  and  deeply  interested  congregation. 
In  the  pubhshed  account  of  the  exercises,  it  is  stated  that 
**  It  was  most  evident  that  God  was  present  on  the  occasion ; 
and  all  felt  as  if  such  a  spirit  of  prayer  and  conciliation,  and 
fraternal  harmony  and  aflfection,  was  a  token  for  good.  Not 
a  word  was  uttered,  nor  an  allusion  made  during  the  whole 
of  the  services,  but  what  was  conciliating  and  kind."  To 
this  Convention  all  the  Commissioners  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly were  invited. 

The  next  morning  a  Convention  met  *'  for  prayer  and  con- 
sultation," in  the  Seventh  Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadel- 
phia, to  which  no  Commissioners  to  the  approaching  Assem- 
bly were  invited  nor  admitted,  except  such  as  were  in  favor 
of  sustaining  the  revolutionary  measures  of  the  previous  As- 
sembly. 

While  these  two  Conventions  were  in  session,  the  Consti- 
tutional one  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  viz.  : — 

**  Resolved  1.  That  while  we  regard  with  deep  sorrow 
the  existing  difficulties  in  our  beroved  church,  we  would 
fondly  hope  that  there  are  no  insurmountable  obstacles  m 
the  way  of  arresting  the  calamity  of  a  violent  dismember- 
ment, and  of  securing  such  an  organization  as  may  avoid 
collision,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  a  perpetual  harmonious 
action. 

*' Resolved  2.  That  we  are  ready  to  co-operate  in  any 
efforts  for  pacification,  which  are  constitutional,  and  which 
shall  recognize  the  regular  standing  and  secure  the  rights  of 
the  entire  church,  including  those  portions  which  the  acts  of 
the  last  Assembly  were  intended  to  exclude. 

"  Resolved  3.  That  a  Committee  of  three  be  now  ap- 
pointed, respectfully  to  communicate  the  foregoing  resolu- 
tions to  those  Commissioners  who  are  at  present  inclined  to 
sustain  the  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  and  t     i 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  159 

quire  whether  it  be  their  pleasure  to  open  a  friendly  confer- 
ence for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  if  some  constitutional 
terms,  if  practicable,  may  not  be  agreed  upon."* 

The  Hon.  Willard  Hall  and  the  llev.  Drs.  Hill  aud  Fisher 
were  appointed  a  committee  to  communicate  these  resolu- 
tions to  the  commissioners,  convened  in  the  Seventh  Presby- 
terian Church,  for  deliberation. 

"  It  was  resolved  to  spend  a  season  of  prayer  for  the 
Divine  blessing  upon  this  attempt  to  adjust  amicably  the 
difficulties  between  the  two  parties.  All  felt  this  to  be  a 
most  solemn  and  critical  moment,  and  an  unusual  spirit  of 
prayer  w^as  manifest."* 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  following  day,  this  committee 
made  their  report.  They  were  "  not  permitted  to  enter  the 
house  where  the  Old  School  Convention  was  convened — they 
were  kept  standing  without  for  forty  minutes,  and  were 
finall}'-  told  by  a  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  them, 
that  the  subject  would  be  presented  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention,  and  that  the  result  would  be  communicated 
in  writing.     The  following  is  the  communication  :" 

*'  The  Committee  on  the  communication  from  the  meeting 
of  Convention  now  in  session  in  the  lecture-room  of  the  First 
Church,  presented  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions, 
which  were  read -and  adopted,  viz. : — 

"  Whereas,  the  resolutions  of  '  the  meeting,'  whilst  they 
profess  a  readiness  '  to  co-operate  in  any  efforts  for  pacifica- 
tion which  ai-e  constitutional,'  manifestly  proceed  upon  the 
erroneous  supposition  that  the  acts  of  the  last  General  As- 
sembly, declaring  the  four  Synods  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee,  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion of  our  church,  were  unconstitutional  and  invalid,  and 
the  Convention  cannot  for  a  moment  consent  to  consider 
them  in  that  light ;   therefore, 

"  1.  Resolved,  unanimoubly,  That  the  Convention  regard 
the  said  overture  of  'the  meeting,'  however  intended,  as 
founded  upon  a  basis  which  is  wholly  inadmissible,  and  as 
*New  York  Observer,  May  20111,  1838. 


160  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

calculated  only  to  disturb  that  peace  of  our  Church,  which 
a  calm  and  firm  adherence  to  those  constitutional,  just,  and 
necessary  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  can  alone,  by 
the  blessing  of  Divine  Providence,  establish  and  secure. 

*'  2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  Convention,  the 
resolutions  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  which  provide  in 
substance  that  all  churches  and  ministers  within  the  said 
four  Synods,  which  ai-e  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and 
order,  and  wish  to  unite  with  us,  may  apply  for  admission 
into  those  Presbyteries  belonging  to  our  connection,  which 
are  most  convenient  to  their  tespective  locations,  and  that 
any  such  Presbytery  as  aforesaid,  being  strictly  Presbyterian 
in  doctrine  and  order,  and  now  in  connection  with  either  of 
the  said  Synods,  as  may  desire  to  imite  with  us,  are  directed 
to  make  application,  with  a  full  statement  of  the  case,  to  the 
next  General  Assembly,  which  will  take  order  thereon,  fur- 
nishes a  fair  and  easy  mode  of  proceeding,  by  which  all  such 
ministers,  churches,  and  Presbyteries,  within  the  said  Sy- 
nods, as  are  really  desirous  to  be  'recognized'  as  in  'regular 
standing'  with  us,  and  as  proper  parts  of  our  '  entire  Church,* 
may  obtain  their  object  without  trouble  and  without  delay.'"''^ 

These  resolutions  in  reply  to  the  pacific  overtures  of  the 
Convention,  sitting  in  the  1st  Presbyterian  Church,  blasted 
all  the  hopes  that  had  been  entertained  by  them,  of  an  ami- 
cable adjustment  of  the  difficulties  which  threatened  the 
permanent  division  of  the  Church.  Previous  to  the  adop- 
tion of  these  resolutions,  the  Convention  bad  resolved  "  that 
the  acts  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  declaring  the  four 
Synods  of  Western  Reserve,  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee  out 
of  the  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  said  Church,  be  cor- 
dially and  conclusively  sustained. "f 

Their  whole  proceedings  made  it  manifest  as  the  light  of 
noon-day,  that  the  only  pacification,  which  they  contem- 
plated, was  that  of  passive  obedience  to  their  rule  and  dicta- 
tion.    Nothing  now  remained   for  the  Constitutional  party> 

*  Ivew  York  Observer,  May  20th,  1838,  f  Ibid. 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  161 

but  to  bow  to  their  usurped  and  unrighteous  authority,  or 
endeavor  to  secure  the  organization  of  the  Assembly  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  principles  of  the  Constitution.  In  view  of 
the  uncertainty  of  the  success  of  the  pacific  overture,  made 
to  their  brethren  of  the  other  Convention,  while  the  negotia- 
tions for  pacification  were  pending,  the  following  resolution 
was  introduced  and  subsequently  passed,  with  but  one  or  two 
votes  in  the  negative,  viz. : 

"  Resolved,  That  should  a  portion  of  the  Commissioners 
to  the  next  General  Assembly  attempt  to  organize  the  As- 
sembly without  admitting  to  their  seats  commissioners  from 
all  the  Presbyteries  recognized  in  the  organization  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837 — it  will  then  be  the  duty  of  the 
commissioners  present,  to  organize  the  General  Assembly  of 
1838,  in  all  respects  according  to  the  Constitution,  and  to 
transact  all  other  necessary  business  consequent  upon  such 
organization."* 

Such  was  the  position  of  the  two  parties  when  the  time 
for  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  arrived.  Those  who  met 
in  Convention  in  the  7th  Presbyterian  Church,  were  resolved 
to  sustain  the  revolutionary  acts  of  the  last  Assembly,  and 
exclude  from  the  one  about  to  be  organized  all  commission- 
ers from  the  Presbyteries  within  ihe  bounds  of  the  disowned 
Synods.  Those -who  met  in  the  1st  Church,  were  resolved 
to  use  all  lawful  measures  to  prevent  an  organization  so 
manifestly  unconstitutional  and  unrighteous,  and  secure 
one  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
The  meetino:  of  the  two  conventions  on  the  eve  of  the  meet- 
ing  of  the  Assembly,  one  to  sustain  the  revolutionary  acts  of 
that  of  the  previous  year ; — the  other,  if  possible,  to  annul 
them,  and  secure  the  integrity  of  the  Church,  and  public 
rumor,  had  produced  great  excitement  and  called  together  a 
large  concourse  of  people.  The  Assembly  met  in  the  7th 
Presbyterian  Church.  "  At  an  early  hour  the  Reformers 
were  found  in  a  body  near  the  pulpit,  and  the  two  doors  near 
*  New  York  Observer,  May  26tb,  1838. 


162  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

the  Moderator's  cliair,  locked,"— a  thing  believed  to  be 
wholly  unprecedented  in  the  annals  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States.  The  Commissioners,  who 
were  opposed  to  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  Assembly  of  the 
previous  year,  were  compelled  to  enter  the  door  in  the  rear 
of  the  church  and  take  seats  behind  their  brethren,  who  had 
taken  possession  of  those  near  the  pulpit. 

The  sermon  being  ended,  the  Rev.  Doct.  ElUot,  the  Mod- 
erator of  the  last  Assembly,  announced  that  the  General 
Assembly  would  be  constituted  with  prayer.  After  prayer, 
before  the  Clerk  had  presented  the  roll  of  the  Assembly,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Patton  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolu- 
tions, viz : 

"  Whereas,  the  General  Assembly  of  183 7  adopted  certain 
resolutions  intended  to  deprive  certain  Presbyteries  of  the 
right  to  be  represented  in  the  General  Assembly; — and 
whereas,  the  more  fully  to  accomplish  their  purpose,  the  said 
Assembly  of  1837  did  require  and  receive  from  theu*  clerks 
a  pledge  or  promivse,  that  they  would,  in  making  out  the 
roll  of  commissioners  to  constitute  the  General  Assembly  of 
1838,  omit  to  insert  therein  the  names  of  commissioners  from 
said  Presbyteries; — and  whereas  the  said  clerks,  having 
been  requested  by  commissioners  from  the  said  Presbytt-ries 
to  receive  their  commissions  and  enter  their  names  on  the  Roll 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  now  about  to  be  organ- 
ized, have  refused  to  receive  and  enter  the  same — Therefore, 
"  1.  Resolved,  That  such  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1837  and  their  clerks,  to  direct  and  control 
the  organization  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  are  uncon- 
stitutional, and  in  derogation  of  its  just  rights  as  the  general 
representative  judicatory  of  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly  cannot  be 
legally  constituted  except  by  admitting  to  seats  and  to 
equahty  of  powers,  in  the  first  instance,  all  commissioners, 
who  present  the  usual  evidences  of  their  appointment ;  and 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  1GB 

that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  clerks,  and  they  are  hereby  direct- 
ed, to  form  the  Roll  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  by 
including  therein  the  names  of  all  commissioners  from  Pres- 
byteries belonging  to  the  said  Presbyterian  Church,  not 
omitting  the  commissioners  from  the  several  Presbyteries 
within  the  bounds  of  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  Genesee, 
and  the  Western  Reserve ;  and  in  all  things  to  form  the  said 
Roll  according  to  the  known  practice  and  estabhshed  usage 
of  previous  General  Assemblies."* 

The  Moderator  declared  Dr.  Patton  out  of  order,  as  the 
first  business  was  the  formation  of  the  Roll.  Dr.  Patton  re- 
plied that  the  resolutions  had  reference  to  its  formation,  and 
that  if  permitted  to  present  them,  he  would  do  so  without 
remark.  The  Moderator  again  declared  him  out  of  order. 
Dr.  Patton  appealed  from  this  decision.  The  Moderator 
declared  the  appeal  out  of  order,  and  refused  to  put  it.  Dr. 
Patton  then  took  his  seat  without  readino-  the  resolutions. 

The  Clerk  then  read  the  roll  of  the  Commissioners,  omit- 
ting those  from  the  disowned  Synods. 

The  Moderator  then  stated  that  if  other  commissioners 
were  present,  whose  names  had  not  been  entered  on  the  roll, 
they  could  then  present  them. 

The  Rev.  Erskine  Mason,  D.D.,  one  of  the  enrolled  mem- 
bers, then  rose~"and  said,  "  Moderator,  I  hold  in  my  hand  a 
number  of  commissions  which  the  clerks  have  rejected :  I 
now  tender  them  to  the  house,  and  move  that  their  names  be 
added  to  the  roll."  The  Moderator  declared  the  motion  out 
of  order.  Dr.  Mason  then  appealed  to  the  house,  but  the 
Moderator  refused  to  put  the  appeal.  By  this  refusal,  the 
rights  of  Dr.  Mason,  and  the  rights  of  the  house,  were  inva- 
ded, and  a  question  of  privilege,  which  takes  the  precedence 
of  all  other  questions,  and  is  always  in  order,  was  raised. 
Decisions  by  the  presiding  officer  of  a  deliberative  body,  more 
arbitrary  and  unrighteous,  cannot  well  be  conceived.  They 
were  in  direct  conflict  with  the  29th  of  the  general  rules, 

*  S.  Miller's,  Jun.  Ileport  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  case,  p.  51. 


164  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

for  tlie  government  of  Church  Judicatories  in  the  transaction 
of  their  business,  which  is  in  these  words,  viz. : 

"  If  any  member  consider  himself  as  aggrieved  by  a  decis- 
ion of  the  Moderator,  it  shall  be  his  privilege  to  appeal  to  the 
judicatory ;  and  the  question  on  such  appeal  shall  be  taken 
without  debate." 

After  Doctor  Mason  had  taken  his  seat,  "  The  Rev.  Miles 
P.  Squier  rose  in  his  place,  and  said,  that  he  had  been  regu- 
larly commissioned  from  the  Presbytery  of  Geneva,  that  he 
had  handed  his  commission  to  the  Clerks,  and  that  they  had 
refused  to  receive  it ;  that  he  tendered  it  to  the  Assembly, 
and  demanded  his  seat  upon  that  floor.  I'he  Moderator  asked 
whether  the  Presbytery  of  Geneva  belonged  to  the  Synod  of 
Geneva  ?  On  being  told  that  it  did,  the  Moderator  said, 
*  We  do  not  know  you,'  and  Mr.  Squier  sat  down."* 

The  Rev.  John  P.  Cleveland  then  rose  and  said  in  sub- 
stance, **  As  the  Commissioners  from  a  large  number  of  Pres- 
byteries have  been  denied  their  seats  in  this  house,  and  as  we 
have  been  advised  by  counsel  learned  in  the  law,  that  a  Con- 
stitutional Assembly  must  be  organized  at  this  time  and  place, 
he  trusted  it  would  not  be  considered  an  act  of  discourtesy, 
but  merely  of  necessity,  if  we  now  proceed  to  organize  the  As- 
sembly of  1838,  in  the  fewest  words  and  in  the  shortest  time, 
and  with  the  least  interruption  practicable.  I  therefore  move 
that  Doctor  N".  S.  S.  Beman,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Troy, 
take  the  chair."  This  motion  was  put  by  Mr.  Cleveland  and 
carried,  a  few  voices  only  being  heard  in  the  negative,  and 
Doctor  Beman  was  declared  duly  elected. 

The  Rev.  Doctor  Mason  and  the  Rev.  E.  W.  Gilbert  were 
then  chosen  clerks.  Doctor  Beman  then  called  for  nomina- 
tions for  a  Moderator.  Doctor  Fisher  was  nominated,  and 
chosen  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  Doctor  Beman  then 
declared  Doctor  Fisher  elected,  and  resigned  his  place  to  him. 
Doctor  Fisher  took  it,  and  called  for  nominations  for  Clerks. 
Doctor  Mason  and  Mr.  Gilbert  were  nominated,  and  elected. 
*  Presbyterian  Church  case,  by  S.  Miller,  Jun.,  page  80. 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  .  165 

A  motion  was  then  made  and  carried  to  adjourn  to  the  Lecture 
Room  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church.  Doctor  Fisliergave 
notice  of  the  adjournment,  and  requested  any  Commissioners 
present  who  had  not  yet  handed  in  their  Commissions,  to  do 
so  at  the  place  and  time  to  which  the  Assembly  had  ad- 
journed. 

After  the  Assembly  thus  organized  had  left  the  church, 
"  the  Commissioners,  who  adhered  to  the  acts  of  the  As- 
sembly of  1837,  having  with  few  exceptions  taken  no  part  in 
the  transaction,  organized  themselves  into  an  Assembly,  and 
have  subsequently  taken  measures  to  divide  the  Presbyterian 
Church  by  organizing  into  separate  Synods,  Presbyteries  and 
Churches,  such  minorities  in  different  parts  of  the  country  as 
adhered  to  them,  and  when  they  had  the  majority,  casting 
out  such  minorities  as  adhered  to  this  "  (that  is,  the  Consti- 
tutional) "Assembly."* 

These  are  indeed  afflictive  and  humiliating  events  to  be 
placed  upon  the  pages  of  history,  but  Constitutional  Pres- 
byterians do  not  feel  themselves  responsible  for  them.  In 
1837  they  labored  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  exscinding 
acts,  and  in  1838  the  organization  of  an  irregular  Assembly. 
Though  unsuccessful  in  these  efforts,  they  organized  the  As- 
sembly in  strict  conformity  with  the  Constitution,  before  the 
exscinders  organized  theh's  upon  their  new  basis.  This  they 
did  in  as  courteous  and  orderly  a  manner  as  the  circum- 
stances admitted,  but  the  act  has  been  severely  censured,  and 
even  ridiculed.  In  the  circumstances,  it  is  manifest  the  As- 
sembly could  not  be  constitutionally  organized  without  ex- 
citement and  some  confusion,  for  the  Moderator,  Clerks,  and 
Commissioners,  who  approved  and  were  determined  to  sus- 
tain the  acts  of  the  previous  Assembly,  declaring  the  four 
Synods  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  were  leagued  to- 
gether to  prevent  it.  Any  one,  however,  who  will  read  with 
candor  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  at  the  trial,  insti- 
tuted for  deciding  which  of  the  two  Assemblies  was  consti- 

*  Minutes  of  the  Constitutional  Assembly  for  1S39,  page  59. 


166  EFFORTS    TO    SECURF    A 

tutionally  organized,  cannot  fail  to  be  convinced  tlmt  the  ac- 
counts of  the  excitement  and  noise  at  the  time  of  the  oro-an- 
ization,  are  gross  exaggerations,  and  that  a  large  share  of 
what  was  really  objectionable  is  chargeable  to  their  own 
party.  The  fact  is,  the  Commissioners,  who  were  opposed 
to  the  organization  of  an  irregular  Assembly,  were  laid  un- 
der the  necessity  of  org-anizing  one  at  that  time  and  place  in 
conformity  with  the  Constitution,  or  see  it  trampled  upon, 
and  abandon  their  principles  and  their  brethren,  who  had 
been  ruthlessly  cast  out  of  the  Church.  The  latter  they 
could  not  do.  Nothing  therefore  remained  for  them  but  to 
remove  the  Moderator  and  Clerks  who  refused  to  do  their 
duty,  and  elect  such  to  fill  their  places  as  would  aid  in  or- 
ganizing a  regular  Assembly.  This  they  did,  and  thereby 
secured  such  an  organization. 

Those  who  opposed  it,  and  subsequently  organized  an  As- 
sembly on  a  new  basis,  have  often  asserted,  but  never  proved 
that  Mr.  Cleveland  had  no  right  to  put  the  motion  for  Doctor 
Beman  to  take  the  chair,  till  a  new  Moderator  should  be 
chosen.  If  the  action  of  Congress,  in  similar  circumstances,  is 
to  be  regarded  as  valid  authority,  he  had  a  perfect  right  to 
put  the  motion. 

*'  The  Twenty- Sixth  Congress  met  on  the  second  of  De- 
cember, 1839.  According  to"  established  usage,  "the  Clerk 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  takes  the  chair  till  the  organ- 
ization of  tjie  body  is  completed.  The  Clerk  at  the  proper 
time  and  place,  when  the  members  came  together,  commenced 
calling  the  roll.  He  proceeded  with  the  States  till  he  came  to 
New  Jersey.  He  then  proposed  passing  over  her  represen- 
atives,  as  their  seats  would  be  contested.  Passing  over  these 
members  would  probably  give  to  the  Clerk's  party  the  balance 
of  power  in  the  organization,  election  of  speaker,  &c.  Here 
business  came  to  a  stand.  The  Clerk  was  unwilling  to  pro- 
ceed, except  in  his  own  way.  On  the  fourth  day  Mr.  Adams 
rose  and  said  : 

*  Fellow-citizens  and  members  elect  of  the  Twenty-Sixth 


REGULAR    ASSEMBLY.  167 

Congress  of  the  United  States — I  address  rayself  to  you,  and 
not  to  the  Clerk  in  the  chair,  under  a  painful  sense  of  my  own 
duty.  The  Clerk  has  said,  he  will  not  proceed  in  the  call, 
according  to  established  usage  and  custom.  He  discovered 
yesterday  that  he  might  put  the  question  of  adjournment. 
He  therefore  put  it ;  but  he  gave  notice  that  he  should  put 
no  other  question.  Fellow-citizens,  in  Avhat  predicament  are 
we  placed  ?  We  are  fixed  as  firml}'-  and  immovably  as  these 
columns  around  the  house.  We  can  neither  go  forward  nor 
backward,  and  the  Clerk  tells  us  he  will  persist  in  both  the 
decisions  he  has  made.  We  must  organize.  If  there  is  diffi- 
culty in  relation  to  any  portion  of  us,  we  must  do  what  Mr. 
Jefferson  said  was  done  when  Lord  Dunmore  dissolved  the 
legislature  of  Virginia  on  a  sudden.  What  did  they  do? 
They  adjourned  to  a  tavern,  they  constituted  themselves  a 
convention,  and  they  acted  as  the  legislature  of  the  State  or 
Colony.  They  actually,  instead  of  being  assembled  in  the 
place  from  which  the  Governor  had  excluded  them,  adjourn- 
ed to  another  place,  formed  themselves  into  a  Convention, 
and  there  acted  in  the  name  of  the  State.  I  call  upon  you 
in  the  name  of  the  people  to  organize.  I  call  upon  the  house 
to  set  aside  entirely  his  decisions,  and  to  act  for  themselves. 
I  have  no  doubt  of  their  power  to  do  it.  Therefore,  in  sub- 
mitting this  proposition,  I  have  no  reference  to  the  clerk,  nor 
to  any  opinion  of  his.  I  propose  that  the  house  itself  should 
act.     It  may,  if  it  pleases,  choose  a  temporary  Clerk.' 

*'  These  extracts  from  Mr.  Adams'  speech  will  show  how 
Conjxressmen  feel  in  a  case  in  which  an  officer  refuses  to  do 
his  duty.  Mr.  Adams  was  repeating  his  call  upon  the  House 
to  act,  regardless  of  the  gentleman  in  the  chair,  when  he  was 
interrupted  by  many  members  asking,  '  How  shall  the  ques- 
tion be  put  V  Mr.  Adams  replied,  raising  his  voice  above 
the  tumult :  *  I  intend  to  put  the  question.'  Mr.  Adams 
was  accordingly  soon  nominated,  and  elected  to  act  as  chair- 
man, till  the  house  could  be  organized,  and  a  speaker  ap- 
pointed." 


168  EFFORTS    TO    SECURE    A 

"  Here  is,  then,  a  case  in  point.  Has  any  one  contended 
that  Mr.  Adams  had  no  right  to  put  the  question  ?  Has 
any  one  said  that  the  Twenty-Sixth  Congress  ^Yas  not  con- 
stitutionally organized,  because  the  gentleman  in  the  chair 
was  removed  and  another  put  in  his  place  ?"* 

"  And  how  very  similar  the  two  organizations !  The 
Moderator  of  one  body  and  the  clerk  of  the  other,  according 
to  law,  were  acting  as  chairman  till  the  organization  of  the 
bodies,  and  the  election  of  presiding  officers.  The  chairman 
of  each  body  refuses  to  enroll  certain  members  claiming  seats, 
with  commissions  in  proper  form.  They  refuse  to  put  mo- 
tions bearing  upon  the  roll.  Mr.  Cleaveland  in  one  body,  and 
Mr.  Adams  in  the  other,  rise  and  call  upon  the  members  to 
organize — to  act  regardless  of  the  decisions  of  the  chair,  and 
appoint  other  officers  who  will  organize  according  to  law 
and  usage.  And  the  thing  was  done.  There  was  opposi- 
tion and  cries  of  order  from  those  who  were  opposed  to  the 
organization.  But  the  voices  of  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Cleave- 
land rose  above  the  swelling  tumult — above  the  cries  of  or- 
der, the  coughing  and  scraping  of  the  opposition,  and  were 
heard  by  all  who  wanted  to  hear."* 

The  Assembly  organized  under  Doct.  Fisher  as  Moderator 
and  Doct.  Mason  and  Mr.  Gilbert  as  Clerks,  was  not  a  dif- 
ferent one,  as  those  who  trampled  upon  the  Constitution  by 
refusing  to  enter  upon  the  roll  of  the  House  the  names  of  a 
portion  of  the  Commissioners,  and  their  adherents  have  often 
asserted,  but  the  continuation  of  the  one  in  the  process  of 
formation,  which  could  not  be  completed  under  its  original 
officers.  Had  their  refusal  to  do  their  duty  been  the  result 
of  a  sudden  ebullition  of  bad  temper, — a  mere  temporary  ex- 
citement, they  would  soon  have  passed  away,  and  with  them, 
the  obstacles  to  a  regular  orfyanization.  But  it  was  not.  It 
was  the  result  of  a  settled,  avowed  purpose  to  carry  out  the 
revolutionary  measures  of  the  Assembly  of  the  previous 
year.  Hence  the  Commissioners  to  the  Assembly  of  1838, 
*  Wood's  History,  pages  156,  157. 


REGULAIi    ASSEMBLY.  169 

who  removed  those  officers,  and  appointed  others,  who  per- 
formed their  duty,  and  admitted  all  who  presented  Com- 
missions in  due  form  of  their  appointment  by  their  Presby- 
teries, to  seats  in  the  House,  completed  the  organization  of  a 
strictly  Constitutional  Assembly. 


THE  ASSEMBLY,  WHICH  HELD  ITS  SESSIONS  IN  THE  SEVENTU  PKESBYTERIAW 
CHURCH  IN  1888,  WAS  ORGANIZED  UPON  A  BASIS  WHOLLY  UNKNOWN 
TO   OUR   CONSTITUTION. 

The  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  XII.,  section  2d,  reads 
thus :  **  The  General  Assembly  shall  consist  of  an  equal 
delegation  of  Bishops  and  Elders  from  each  Presbytery.  A 
large  number  of  Bishops  and  Elders,  appointed  by  their  res- 
pective Presbyteries  to  attend  the  Assembly  of  1S38,  went  to 
the  place  of  meeting  with  Commissions  made  out  in  due  form, 
against  whom  no  charge  of  heresy  or  irregularty  had  been 
substantiated  or  even  brought.  They  were,  it  is  true,  from 
Presbyteries  within  the  bounds  of  the  disowned  Synods.  It 
has  been  shown,  however,  in  a  previous  part  of  this  his- 
tory, that  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  by  which  they  were 
declared  no  longer  in  connection  with  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  these  United  States,  were  unconstitutional  and  void. 
Consequently  their  Commissioners  were  as  fully  entitled  to 
seats  as  those  from  other  sections  of  the  Church.  But  those 
who  had  declared  them  out  of  the  church  and  their  coad- 
jutors, had  taken  every  precautionary  measure  to  prevent 
them  from  obtaining  seats  in  the  Assembly.  The  Assembly 
of  the  previous  year  had  required  and  obtained  a  pledge 
from  the  Clerks  that  they  would  not  receive  their  Commis- 
sions. This  pledge  they  redeemed.  The  Commissioners, 
who  held  their  Convention  in  the  church  in  which  the  As- 
sembly was  organized,  took  their  seats  near  the  pulpit  at  an 
early  hour,  caused  the  doors  on  each  side  of  it  to  be  locked, 


THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY.  171 

and  obtained  a  pledge  from  the  Trustees  of  the  church  that 
no  other  Assembly  than  the  one  which  should  be  organized 
under  the  direction  of  the  Moderator  and  Clerks  of  the  last 
Assembly,  should  have  the  use  of  the  building.  Had  it 
been  their  purpose  to  organize  the  Assembly  according  to  the 
Constitution,  these  unprecedented  measures,  preparatory  to 
its  organization,  would  have  been  wholly  unnecessary.  Stick- 
lers as  they  professedly  were  for  the  Constitution,  in  their 
efforts  to  organize  the  Assembly,  they  utterly  disregarded  its 
requisitions.  They  labored  to  perfect  the  revolution,  com- 
menced by  the  Assembly  of  the  previous  year,  till  the 
Moderator  and  Clerks  were  removed,  and  the  Assembly  was 
regularly  organized  by  the  appointment  of  others,  who  per- 
formed their  duty.  After  the  Assembly  thus  constitutionally 
organized  had  adjourned  to  the  First  Presbyterian  Church, 
they  remained,  and  organized  an  Assembly  upon  a  *'  new 
basis."  This  is  evident  from  the  report  of  '*  the  Committee  on 
the  State  of  the  Church,"  adopted  by  that  body  on  the  30th 
of  May.  This  report  we  present  entire,  that  our  readers 
may  have  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  what  we  assert  in 
their  own  language.     The  report  is  as  follows,  viz  : 

*'  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca finds  itself,  by  the  providence  of  God,  in  the  course  of 
new  and  unprecedented  events,  in  a  position  of  great  diffi- 
culty, novelty  and  importance.  The  Church,  led  and  sup- 
ported by  the  God  of  Zion,  has  within  the  last  few  years 
commenced  a  great  reform,  which  had  become  indispensable 
to  its  very  existence,  as  organized  on  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  and  order  of  its  own  Constitution.  The  General 
Assembly  of  1837  carried  forward  this  reform  in  several 
measures  of  great  and  momentous  importance,  for  the  de- 
tails of  which  we  refer  to  its  records.  The  voice  of  the 
Church,  uttered  in  a  multitude  of  forms,  and  especially  by 
the  Commissioners  to  the  present  General  Assembly,  is 
clearly  and  decisively  in  favor  of  consummating  the  reform 
thus  auspiciously  commenced." 


172  THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY 

*'  But  a  portion  of  the  Ministers  and  Ruling  Elders,  sent 
to  this  Assembly,  forgetting  or  violating,  as  we  apprehend, 
their  duty  to  God  and  to  the  Church,  and  choosing  to  de- 
part from  us,  have,  in  connection  with  other  persons  not  in 
the  communion  of  our  Church,  constituted  a  new  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  which  they  improperly  and  unjustly  as- 
sume to  call  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  To  meet  the 
present  crisis  at  once,  with  the  temper  and  sphit  becoming 
our  high  vocation,  and  to  preserve  in  it,  and  carry  safely 
through  it,  the  Church  committed  in  so  great  a  degree  to 
our  guidance,  in  times  of  so  much  trial  and  disorder,  the 
three  following  Acts  are  now  ordained  and  established,  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America." 

*'ACT.    I. 

"Section  1st.  That  in  the  present  state  of  the  Church, 
all  the  Presbyteries  in  our  connection  ought  to  take  order, 
and  are  hereby  enjoined  to  take  such  order  as  is  consistent 
with  this  minute,  for  the  general  reform  and  pacification  of 
the  Church ;  and  they  are  directed  so  to  do  some  time  be- 
tween the  dissolution  of  the  present  General  Assembly  and 
the  fall  meetings  of  the  Synods,  either  at  stated,  or  at  'pro  re 
nata  meetings  of  the  Presbyteries,  as  shall  seem  most  advi- 
sable to  them  respectively.  And  those  presbyteries  whose 
commissioners  to  this  Assembly  have  united  with  others  in 
the  formation  of  another  Assembly,  in  the  presence  of  this, 
and  with  tumult  and  violence  in  open  contempt  of  it ;  or 
who  have  advised  the  formation  of  said  body,  or  adhered 
to,  or  attended  it  as  members  thereof,  after  its  formation, 
renounced,  or  refused  to  recognize  this  true  and  only  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  are  hereby  required  to  take  proper  order 
in  regard  to  their  said  commissioners." 

'SSection  2d.    Tn  case  the  majority  of  any  Presbytery, 


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY    ORGANIZED.  173 

whose  commissioners  have  acted  as  aforesaid,  shall  take 
proper  order  touching  their  conduct  in  the  premises,  and 
are  willing,  upon  the  basis  of  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and 
1838,  to  adhere  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  then  and  in  that  case  the  acts  of  their  said  commis- 
sioners, in  advising,  creating,  or  uniting  with  said  secession, 
or  in  refusing  to  attend  on  this  Assembly,  as  the  case  may  be, 
shall  not  prejudice  the  rights  or  intei^ests,  or  aflfect  the  in- 
tegrity of  said  Presbytery,  or  its  union  with  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  an  integral 
portion  thereof." 

'*  Section  3d.  In  case  the  majority  of  any  Presbytery 
shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  take  proper  order  in  regard  to  its 
seceding  commissioners,  or  shall  approve  their  conduct,  or 
adhere  to  the  new  sect  they  have  created,  or  shall  decline, 
or  fail  to  adhere  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  upon  the  said  basis  of  1837  and  1838, 
for  the  reform  of  the  Church,  then  and  in  that  case  the  mi- 
nority of  said  Presbytery  shall  be  held  and  considered  to  be 
the  true  Presbytery,  and  shall  continue  the  succession  of  the 
Presbytery  by  its  name  and  style,  and  from  the  rendition  of 
the  erroneous  and  schismatical  decision,  which  is  the  test  in 
the  case,  be  the  Presbytery ;  and  if  sufficiently  numerous  to 
perform  PresbyteTial  acts,  shall  go  forward  with  all  the 
proper  acts  and  functions  of  the  Presbytery." 

"  Section  4th.  In  case  the  minority  of  any  Presbytery 
should  be  too  small  to  constitute  a  Presbytery,  and  perform 
Presbyterial  acts,  said  minority  shall  remain  in  its  existing 
state  until  the  next  subsequent  meeting  of  the  Synod  to 
which  it  properly  belongs,  which  will  then  take  order  on  the 
subject.  Otherwise  there  is  a  possibility  that  several  Synods 
might  be  unable  to  constitute,  if  majorities  of  part  of  their 
Presbyteries  should  adhere  to  the  secession,  and  the  minori- 
ties attach  themselves  to  other  Presbyteries,  or  several  unite 
into  one,  before  the  Synods  meet." 

**  Section  5th.    The  principles  of  this  Act  shall  be  ap- 

b 


174  THE    NEW   BASIS    ASSEMBLY 

plied  to  Churches,  with  their  majorities  and  minorities,  and 
to  church  sessions,  as  far  as  they  are  applicable.  And  the 
Presbyteries  are  hereby  required  so  to  exercise  their  watch 
and  care,  that  as  far  as  possible,  all  the  Churches  may  be 
preserved  :»  and  where,  unhappily,  this  cannot  be  done,  then 
the  minorities  in  the  sessions  and  churches  shall  be  cared 
for,  and  dealt  with  on  the  general  principles  now  laid  down.'* 
**  The  Assembly  is  fully  sensible,  that  in  divided  Presby- 
teries and  Churches,  every  thing  depends,  under  God,  upon 
the  promptitude,  firmness,  wisdom  and  moderation  of  the 
friends  of  Christ,  m  this  great  crisis.  In  this  conviction, 
the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  subject  which  relates  to 
Churches  and  private  Christians,  is  especially  commended 
to  the  Christian  zeal,  prudence,  and  fidelity  of  the  Presby- 
teries and  Church  Sessions.  In  regard  to  the  temporal  in- 
terests of  the  Churches,  and  the  difficulties  which  may 
arise  on  their  account,  the  Assembly  advise  that,  on  the 
one  hand,  great  liberality  and  generosity  should  mark  the 
whole  conduct  of  our  people,  and  especially  in  cases  where 
our  majorities  in  the  Churches  are  very  large,  or  our  minori- 
ties are  very  small :  while  on  the  other  hand  it  would  ad- 
vise, that  providential  advantages  and  important  rights 
ought  not  in  any  case  to  be  hghtly  thrown  away." 

*'  Section  6th.  It  is  enjoined  on  the  Synods  to  take  order 
on  this  subject — to  see  that  the  principles  here  laid  down 
are  duly  enforced — to  take  care  that  the  Presbyteries  act  as 
truth  and  duty  require  in  the  premises — to  make  such  need- 
ful modifications  in  the  Presbyteries  as  their  altered  circum- 
stances may  require — and  to  promote,  by  all  proper  means, 
the  speedy  pacification  of  the  Churches,  by  delivering  and 
saving  them  from  heresy,  disorder  and  schism,  which  having 
so  long  worked  among  them,  is  at  length  ready,  by  God's 
mercy,  to  be  purged  away." 

"  Section  Yth.  The  Synods,  in  all  cases,  shall  be  consid- 
ered lawfully  constituted  only  when  formed  by  or  out  of 
those  Presbyteries  recognized  as  true  Presbyteries  by  this 
Assembly,  according  to  the  true  tenor  or  intent  of  this  Act." 


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY  ORGANIZED.       175 


"Act  II. 

"  Whereas  the  act  of  the  Assembly  of  June  5th,  1837,  de- 
claring the  three  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee,  to 
be  out  of  the  ecclesiasti3al  connection  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  made  ample  pro- 
vision for  the  return  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church  of  every 
minister  and  church,  truly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and 
order,  as  well  within  the  bounds  of  the  three  aforesaid 
Synods,  as  within  those  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Re- 
serve : 

*'  And  whereas,  it  is  represented  to  this  Assembly  that,  in 
addition  to  those  who  have  embraced  this  invitation  and 
provision  of  the  aforesaid  Act,  there  are  others  who  have 
held  back  and  are  still  waiting  on  the  developments  of  Provi- 
dence : 

"  And  whereas,  it  was  never  the  intention  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  cause  any  sound  Presbyterian  to  be  perma- 
nently separated  from  our  connection,  but  it  is  and  always 
was  the  desire  of  the  Church,  that  all  who  really  embrace 
our  doctrine,  love  our  order,  and  are  willing  to  conform  to 
our  discipline,  should  unite  themselves  with  us : 

**  And  whereas,  moreover,  the  General  Assembly  has  no 
idea  of  narrowing,  but  would  rather  expand  its  geographical 
limits,  so  as  to  unite,  in  bonds  of  most  intimate  fellowship, 
every  portion  of  our  beloved  country,  and  every  evangelical 
Christian  like-minded  with  ourselves  :  It  is  therefore 

"  Resolved,  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  that  it  be  recom- 
mended,— 

"1st.  That  those  ministers  and  churches  living  within  the 
geographical  limits  of  the  Synods  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
Geneva,  Utica,  and  Genesee,  who  are  willing  to  adhere  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  on  the  basis 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  and  1838,  for  the  gen- 
eral reform  of  the  Church,  take  steps  for  the  immediate  or- 


176  THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY 

ganization  of  as  many  presbyteries  as  there  are  ministers  and 
cliiirches,  such  as  are  above  described,  sufiBiciently  numerous 
to  constitute,  so  that  the  whole  number  of  presbyteries  thus 
formed  shall  not  exceed  one  presbytery  for  each  of  the  afore- 
named synods  ;  and  so  that  the  territory  of  the  Western  Re- 
serve shall  in  no  case  be  added  to  that  in  Western  New 
York.  And  in  case  only  two  presbyteries  can  be  constituted 
on  the  ground  occupied  by  the  three  Synods  of  Utica,  Gene- 
va, and  Genesee,  then  that  whole  territory  shall  be  divided 
between  them.  And  in  case  but  one  Presbytery  can  be  con- 
stituted, then  the  whole  territory  shall  attach  to  it.  In  re- 
gard to  the  Western  Reserve,  it  is  desired  that  a  single  pres- 
bytery be  formed  as  soon  as  convenient  to  embrace  the  whole 
ground." 

"  2d.  The  ministers  and  churches  intended  by  this  Act 
will  hold  such  mutual  correspondence  as  they  shall  deem 
needful,  either  by  general  meeting  or  otherwise ;  and  then 
meet  at  such  convenient  time  and  place  as  may  be  agreed  on 
by  those  who  are  to  be  embraced  in  the  same  presbytery, 
and  then  and  there  constitute  themselves  in  a  regular,  or- 
derly, and  Christian  manner,  into  a  presbytery  under  the 
care  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America." 

"3d.  If  as  many  as  three  presbyteries  can  be  conveniently 
formed  in  Western  New  York,  it  will  be  orderly  for  them,  as 
soon  as  possible  thereafter,  to  unite  and  constitute  them- 
selves into  a  Synod  upon  the  principles  indicated  in  this  Act; 
and  such  Synod,  if  formed,  shall  cover  the  entire  territoiy 
heretofore  occupied  by  the  three  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva, 
and  Genesee.  But  in  case  only  one  or  two  presbyteries  can 
be  formed,  then  application  shall  be  made  by  it,  or  them,  for 
admission  under  the  care  and  into  the  bosom  of  such  Synod 
now  in  our  connection,  as  shall  be  most  convenient  and  na- 
tural. And  the  presbytery  on  the  Western  Reserve,  if  one 
should  be  formed,  will  adopt  the  same  line  of  conduct.  And 
any  Synod  to  which  application  may  be  thus  made  by  any 


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY  ORGANIZED.        177 

presbytery,  shall  take  immediate  order  to  accomplish  the 
ends  of  this  Act.  And  it  is  considered  that  any  presbytery 
or  Synod  formed  in  pursuance  of  these  directions,  shall 
have  full  power  to  perform  all  presbyterial  or  synodical  acts 
agreeably  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Church." 

''Act  III. 

"  Section  1st.  Be  it  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
That  the  Presbytery  of  Abingdon,  now  attached  to  the 
Synod  of  Tennessee,  be,  and  hereby  is,  at  its  own  request, 
detached  from  said  Synod,  and  united  to  the  Synod  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  it  shall  hereafter  be  an  integral  part  of  the  Synod 
of  Virginia,  and  subject  to  its  care  and  oversight." 

*'  Section  2d.  And  whereas  it  is  known  to  the  Assembly 
that  all  the  Commissioners  who  were  present  at  its  constitu- 
tion from  the  Synods  of  Tennessee,  Michigan,  and  Missouri, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Commissioner  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Abingdon,  have  withdrawn  from  the  house,  and,  it  is  be- 
lieved, have  united  in  forming  another  body :  Therefore, 

''Be  it  resolved,  That  if  the  Synod  of  Tennessee  shall, 
either  by  its  own  act  or  the  acts  of  its  presbyteries,  adhere 
to  the  secession  which  has  been  made,  or  fail  or  refuse  to 
adhere  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  provided  in  the  First 
Act;  then  the  minority  or  minorities  therein  adhering  as 
aforesaid  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  shall  be  attached  to, 
and  shall  be  under  the  care  of  the  Synod  of  West  Tennessee, 
and  may  proceed  as  afore  directed  in  the  First  Act,  and  ap- 
ply for  admission  to  the  Synod  of  West  Tennessee,  whose 
jurisdiction  shall  in  that  case  be  extended  so  as  to  include 
the  ecclesiastical  hmits  of  the  Synod  of  Tennessee ;  and  if 
the  like  circumstances  occur  with  respect  to  the  Synod  of 
Missouri,  its  minorities  shall  be  under  the  care  of  the  Synod 
of  Kentucky  on  the  same  principles." 

"  On  motion, 

'*  Ordered,  That  the  stated  clerk  send  an  attested  copy  of 


178  THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY 

the  foregoing  acts  to  the  stated  clerk  of  each  presbytery  and 
Synod  in  connection  with  the  General  Assembly." — Minutes 
of  the  Assembly  of  1838,  pages  33-3*7. 

This  is  an  extraordinary  document,  well  worthy  of  a  few 
moments'  consideration.  It  commences  by  stating  that 
"  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
finds  itself,  by  the  providence  of  God,  in  the  course  of  new 
and  unprecedented  events,  in  a  position  of  great  difficulty, 
novelty,  and  importance."  Her  position  was  indeed  novel 
and  difficult,  and  made  so  by  the  acts  of  their  own  branch  of 
it,  in  183 7  and  1838,  against  the  earnest  and  repeated  re- 
monstrances of  those  who  contended  for  a  strict  adherence 
to  the  Constitution.  Their  acts,  which  were  a  gross  viola- 
tion of  it,  they  denominate  ''a  reform — a  great  reform," 
which,  in  the  document  under  consideration,  they  profess, 
and  no  doubt  very  sincerely,  to  desire  to  consummate. 
Previous  parts  of  this  history,  however,  show  that  the  work 
in  which  they  were  engaged  and  eager  to  perfect,  was  no  re- 
form, but  a  violent  and  disastrous  revolution.  And  yet,  in 
the  document  before  us,  they  have  the  assurance  to  say,  "  A 
portion  of  the  ministers  and  ruling  elders  sent  to  this  As- 
sembly, forgetting  or  violating,  as  we  apprehend,  their  duty 
to  God  and  to  the  Church,  and  choosing  to  depart  from  us, 
have,  in  connection  with  other  persons  not  in  the  communion 
of  our  Church,  constituted  a  new  ecclesiastical  organization, 
which  they  improperly  and  unjustly  assume  to  call  the  true 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

In  view  of  facts  contained  in  previous  parts  of  this  histo- 
ry, our  readers  will  judge  for  themselves  who  were  guilty  of 
violating  "  their  duty  to  God  and  the  Church" — those  who 
thrust  out  so  many  of  her  ministers  and  communicants,  and 
violently  rent  her  asunder,  or  those  who  used  every  lawful 
means  in  their  power  to  prevent  their  violent  and  revolution- 
ary action,  and,  when  they  could  not  succeed,  organized  the 
Assembly  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution. 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  the  authors  of  the 


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY  ORGANIZED.        179 

acts  of  which  we  complain  did  riot  organize  their  Assembly 
according  to  its  requirements.  Ministers  and  elders  against 
whom  no  charge  of  heresy  or  irregularity  had  been  substan- 
tiated, nor  even  brought  in  a  constitutional  manner,  who  had 
been  regularly  commissioned  to  the  Assembly  of  1838  by 
their  Presbyteries,  were  denied  seats  in  the  body.  Accord- 
ing to  their  own  admissions  in  the  acts  now  under  review, 
they  organized  their  Assembly  upon  a  new  basis.  In  them 
they  declare  their  purpose  to  recognize  majorities,  nay,  mi- 
norities of  presbyteries,  sessions,  and  churches,  as  the  case 
might  be,  as  members  of  their  body,  who  should  adhere  to 
it  "upon  the  basis  of  the  Assemblies  of  IBS'?  and  1838." 
According  to  the  Constitution,  the  reception  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  "  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,"  and  adoption  of  the  Form  of  Govern- 
ment and  Discipline,  are  all  that  is  necessary  to  valid  stand- 
ing in  the  Church.  With  the  revolutionists  of  1838  this  was 
altogether  insufficient.  Those  who  had  fully  complied  with 
these  requirements  of  the  Constitution  before  they  could  be 
recogriized  as  connected  with  their  body,  must  declare  their 
adhesion  to  the  new  basis,  created  by  the  Assemblies  of  IBS'? 
and  1838.  In  the  first  act  of  the  reforming  ordinance  now 
under  consideration,  the  presbyteries  are  directed  to  take  or- 
der on  this  subject  previous  to  the  next  meetings  of  their  re- 
spective Synods,  under  the  fearful  penalty  of  being  declared 
not  in  connection  with  "the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America."  Their  adhesion  to  it  upon  this 
basis,  they  affirm  to  be  "the  test  in  the  case."  This  test  is 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Constitution.  They  of  course  organ- 
ized upon  a  "new  basis" — a  basis  which  they  have  not  to 
this  day  repudiated.  This  reformatory  ordinance,  without 
having  been  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their  approval 
or  rejection,  is  really  of  the  nature  of  a  constitutional  rule. 
It  is,  however,  a  "new  measure"  to  which  Constitutional 
Presbyterians  can  never  conscientiously  give  their  approval. 
In  regard  to  the  precise  object  of  these  Acts,  the  mem- 


180  •  THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY 

bers  oif  their  own  body  were  not  agreed.  Some  believed,  and 
we  think,  were  warranted  by  the  language  to  believe,  that 
they  required  the  approval  of  what  they  were  pleased  to  call 
the  reform  measures  of  1837  and  1838.  It  is  difficult  to 
conceive  what  else  could  have  been  their  object.  They  soon 
discovered,  however,  that  if  an  approval  of  them  were  rigidly 
insisted  on,  there  would  be  a  great  diminution  of  their  body. 
In  some  cases,  it  uas  required,  while  other  Presbyteries, 
which  passed  resolutions  strongly  disapproving  of  them, 
were  nevertheless  left  unmolested,  and  are  now  recognized 
by  them  as  orthodox  bodies.  The  Princeton  Repertory, 
doubtless  on  account  of  the  divisive  and  seceding  tendency 
of  a  demand  of  approval,  were  dissatisfied  with  the  language 
of  the  Act.  *'  We  regret,"  say  they,  "  the  use  of  the  lan- 
guage employed,  because  it  is  amhiguous.^^  Construing  it  as 
requiring  approval,  they  say,  "  We  readily  admit  that  if  this 
interpretation  be  correct,  the  act  complained  of  would  be 
unconstitutional  and  tyrannkal.^^  And  yet  in  this  sense, 
*^  unconstitutional  and  tyrannicaV^  as  it  made  the  Act,  it  was 
understood  and  enforced  by  some  Synods  and  many  more 
Presbyteries,  though  we  know  not  their  number.  *'The 
majority  of  the  Presbytery  of  Erie,  belonging  to  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburg,  were  informed  by  the  Synod  that  there  would 
be  no  difficulty  in  their  case,  if  they  would  now  declare  their 
adherence  ^  on  the  basis  of  IBS'?  and  1838.'  The  Presbytery 
answered :  *  We  are  willing  to  adhere  to  the  Synod  of  Pitts- 
burg and  the  General  Assembly  by  which  it  is  governed, 
without  having  ourselves  bound  by  any  additional  pledge 
whatever.'  Whereupon,  Synod  '  Resolved,  that  they  do  not 
consider  said  claimants  as  having  complied  with  the  require- 
ments of  Synod.' 

*'  In  this  case,  the  majority  of  the  Presbytery  were  cut 
off.  Why?  Because  they  were  unwilling  to  adhere  on  the 
basis  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Book  of  Discipline? 
No.  But  because  they  could  not  approve  the  new  test,  and 
were  unwilling  to  adhere  upon  the  new  basis.^' 


UNCONSTITUTIONALLY  ORGANIZED.       181 

The  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  in  their  Pastoral  Letter  of  1838, 
thus  interpret  the  great  ordinance :  "  By  the  provision  of 
that  act,  the  Assembly  says,  if  a  majority  of  a  Presbytery 
ap])rove  and  adhere  to  us,  we  recognize  you  as  a  Presbytery 
in  our  connection,  (fee.  If  you  do  not  ajyprove  and  adhere, 
we  compel  you  not,  but  leave  you  to  act  as  your  best  judg- 
ment dictates.  If  only  a  minority  approve  and  adhere,  that 
minority  we  do  not  disown,  but  if  sufficient  in  number,  we 
recognize  you  as  a  Presbytery." 

On  the  5th  of  September,  1838,  the  Presbytery  of  Vin- 
cennes  enjoined  it  upon  the  Church  Session  of  Evansville,  to 
take  prompt  measures  in  reference  to  their  Elder,  who  had 
been  bold  enough  to  vote,  and  even  protest  against  the  acts 
of  the  General  Assembly ;  declaring  at  the  same  time,  that 
those  only  should  thereafter  constitute  said  Church,  who 
shall  *  approve  of  the  acts  of  the  Assembly.' 

At  the  same  time  the  above-named  Presbytery  withheld 
from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Morrison  liberty  to  preach  within  their 
bounds,  'because  he  refused  to  give  us  any  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  approval  of  those  operations  of  the  Assembly  for 
the  reform  of  the  Church.' 

On  the  4th  of  December,  1838,  the  following  measure  was 
proposed  at  a  meeting  of  Charleston  Union  Presbytery : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  roll  be  now  called,  and  each  member 
without  discussion,  do  declare  whether  he  can  approve  the 
reform  measures  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  ;  and  that 
those  who  answer  in  the  affirmative,  according  to  the  provi- 
sion of  the  last  General  Assembly,  do  constitute  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Charleston  Union,  in  connection  with  the  Presby- 
terian Church.'  The  Moderator  refused  to  put  the  question: 
a  small  minority,  in  obedience,  as  they  say,  *  to  an  injunction 
of  the  supreme  judicatory  of  our  Church,'  declared  them- 
selves the  Charleston  Union  Presbytery,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  majority."* 

Additional  proof  cannot  be  needed  to  establish  the  fact 
*  Wood's  History,  pages  180-182. 
8* 


182  THE    NEW    BASIS    ASSEMBLY. 

that  the  self-styled  reformers  organized  their  Assembly  in 
1838  upon  a  basis  unknown  to  the  Constitution.  As  a  test 
of  adhesion  to  it,  they  did  not  require  evidence  of  a  cordial 
adoption  of  "  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Form  of  Govern- 
ment," but  an  approval  of  its  great  reforming  ordinance,  or 
at  least  of  a  determination  to  submit  to  it : — in  other  words, 
that  they  would  sustain  the  revolutionary  Acts  of  that  As- 
sembly and  those  of  the  Assembly  of  the  previous  year.  To 
make  way^for  this  "  new  basis,^^  the  Constitution  was  wholly 
set  aside. 


ERRONEOUS   APrLICATION   OF   THE   NAMES,    OLD   AND     NEW  SCHOOL. THOSE 

WHO  STYLE  THEMSELVES  OLD  SCHOOL  ARE  THE  NEW,  AND  THOSE  WHOM 
THEY  DENOMINATE  NEW  ARE  THE  OLD  SCHOOL  BRANCH  OF  ^mK  PEES- 
BYTERIAN   CHURai. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  controversy  respecting  Ecclesi- 
astical Boards  and  Voluntary  Societies,  the  friends  of  the 
former  appropriated  to  themselves  the  appellations,  "Old 
School, — the  Orthodox, — the  true  friends  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,"  and  gave  to  the  friends  of  Voluntary  Societies,  the 
name,  "  New  School."  These  appellations  are  not  only 
erroneous,  but  manifestly  unjust.  They  are  adapted,  and 
we  fear  on  the  part  of  those  with  whom  they  originated, 
were  designed  to^produce  the  impression  that  the  great  body 
of  those,  whom  they  denominate  New  School  men,  had 
embraced  doctrines,  wholly  at  variance  with  those  contained 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  were  opposed  to  the  princi- 
ples of  Presbyterian  Church  Government  and  Disciphne. 
The  facts  of  the  preceding  part  of  this  history  show  conclu- 
sively, that  the  appellations  and  epithets  just  mentioned,  are 
grossly  misapplied.  Those  who  claim  to  be  "  Old  School 
Presbyterians,  dyed  in  the  wool,"  are  in  fact  7ieiu,  and  those 
whom  thei/  denominate  7iew  are  in  reality  the  Old  School 
branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  both  in  doctrine  and  order.  That  in  saying  this, 
we  do  *'  but  speak  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness,"  is 
evident, 


184       WHO    ARE    THE    OLD    SCHOOL    PRESBYTERIANS  ? 

1.  From  the  new  test  of  orthodoxy,  required  by  '*  the 
Act  and  Testimony,"  sent  out  by  leading  men  of  their  party. 
The  character  of  this  instrument  has  been  noticed  in  prece- 
ding pages  of  this  narrative.  By  calhng  upon  ministers  and 
elders  to  sign  it  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  in  case  of  refusal, 
subjecting  themselves  to  the  charge  of  heresy,  or  at  least  of 
being  the  abettors  of  gross  error  in  doctrine  they  introduced 
a  new  test  of  soundness  in  the  faith,  wholly  unknown  to  the 
Constitution.  In  this  ho^ht  the  Reriewers  g^  it  in  the  Bibli- 
cal  Repertory  viewed  it,  as  we  have  shown  in  another  part 
of  this  history,  by  quoting  the  language  of  their  review. 

2.  They  have  departed  from  the  principles  of  American 
Presbyterianism,  as  contained  in  the  adopting  ae-t  of  l72t, 
by  requiring  an  unqualified  assent  to  every  shade  of  senti- 
ment contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,     That  Act,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  tolerates  differences  of  opinion  on  points 
of  minor  importance,  not  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  system 
of  doctrine  embraced  in  our  standards.     The  Assembly  of 
1817  reiterate  the  noble  and  tokrant  sentiments  of  that  Act. 
In  their  pastoral  letter  to  the  churches  we  find  the  following 
language :  "That  differences  of  opinion,,  acknowledged  on  all 
hands,  to  be  of  the  minor  class,  may  and  ought   to  be  tole- 
rated among  those  who  are  agreed  in  great  and  leading  views 
of  Divine  truth,  is  a  principle  on  v.'hicb  the  godly  b^re  po» 
long  and  so  generally  acted,  thai  it  seems  unnecessary,  at  the 
present  day,  to  seek  arguments  for  its  support.     Our  fathers, 
in  early  periods  of  the  history  of  our  Chui-ch,  had  their  pe- 
culiarities and  diversities  of  opinion  ;  which  yet,  however,  did 
not  p-event  them  from  loving  one  another,  from  cordially 
acting  together ;  and  by  their  imited  prayers  and  exertions,, 
transmitting  to  us   a  goodly  inheritance.     Let  us  emulate 
their  moderation  and  forbearance,  and  we  may  hope  to  be 
favored  with  more  than  their  success." — Minutes  of  the  As- 
&emhly  o/"  1817,  imge  28. 

These   sentiments  of  the  adopting  Act  of   1729,  and  the? 
Assembly  of  1817,.  are  the  sentiments  of  Constitutional  Pres- 


WHO    ARE    THE    OLD    SCHOOL    PRESBYTERIANS  ?       185 

byterians.  How  utterly  inconsistent  with  fact,  how  grossly 
unjust  to  denominate  thevi  Xew  School  men !  Thei/  are  the 
Old  School,  and  those  who  insist  upon  a  subscription  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  according  to  the  most  rigid  construction 
of  its  language,  are  I^eiv  School  Presbyterians. 

3.  Their  acts  of  excision,  by  which  they  cast  out  of  the 
church  thousands  of  her  members  in  good  standing,  without 
trial,  was  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  constitution,  by  which 
they  had  solemnly  pledged  themselves  to  be  governed.  It 
was  a  neiv  measure,  to  prevent  which  Constitutional  Presby- 
terians labored  with  untiring  zeal,  and  against  which  they 
have  uniformly  protested.  In  respect  to  Presbyterial  order 
they  are  Old  School  Presbyterians. 

4.  The  great  reform  ordinance,  as  its  authors  were  pleased 
to  denominate  it,  of  18S8,  requiring  the  Synods,  PresbyterieS;, 
Sessions  and  Churches,  to  aid  in  carrying  out  the  revolution- 
ary measures  of  the  Assembly  of  the  previous  year,  promis- 
ing to  recognize  even  minorities  of  those  bodies,  who  should, 
and  threatening  all  who  should  refuse,  with  expulsion  from 
their  branch  of  the  church,  was  a  gi'oss  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution. Nay,  this  instrument  it  actually  thrust  aside.  The 
constitution  makes  nothing  necessary  to  good  standing  in  the 
ministry  and  church  but  the  adoption  of  "  the  Confession  of 
Faith  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy 
Scriptures,  and  of  the  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline. '^ 
Of  this  test  of  orthodoxy  and  attachment  to  Presbyterial 
order,  the  extraordinary  instrument  just  mentioned,  said  not 
a  word.  It  only  required  adhesion  to  their  body  **  on  the  basis 
of  the  Assemblies  of  1837  and  1838." 

These  facts  fully  establish  the  position  that  the  self-styled 
Old  School  Presbyterians  are  in  reality  the  JVew;  Md  those 
whom  they  reproachfully  denominate  the  JV^ew,  are  the  Old, 
firmly  planted  upon  the  time-honored  platform  of  original 
American  Presbyterianism. 


(Jljajtu  |;iiitl]» 


POLICY  OF  THE  SELF-STTLKD  REFORMERS  CONCERNING  A  DIVISION  OF  THE 
FUNDS,  AND  THEIR  FEELINGS  IN  REFERENCE  TO  AN  APPEAL  TO  THE 
LAW  OF  THE  LAND,  TO  DECIDE  TO  AVHOM  THEY  BELONGED,  OR  HOW 
THEY  SHOULD  BE  DIVIDED UNSUCCESSFUL  EFFORTS  OF  THE  CONSTITU- 
TIONAL  ASSEMBLY   TO   PREVENT   LITIGATION LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS,    AND 

THEIR    RESULTS, 

By  the  organization  of  the  two  Assemblies  in  1838,  each 
claiming  to  be  the  true  Assembly,  the  division  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  this  country  was  consummated.  But  though 
her  ministers  and  members  were  divided,  no  division  was 
made  of  her  funds.  Before  the  division,  while  the  self-styled 
reformers  were  a  minority  and  determined  to  effect  it,  they 
professed  to  desire  that  an  equitable  and  amicable  division  of 
the  funds  should  be  made.  Some,  at  least,  of  the  new-basis 
Assembly  of  1838,  still  professed  a  willingness  that  those 
whom  they  denominated  seceders,  and  who  on  that  account 
had  forfeited  all  right  to  any  part  of  the  funds,  should,  never- 
theless, have  some  share  of  them.  Provided  this  were  grant- 
ed, however,  it  must  be  as  a  gratuity  to  those  who  had  no 
claim  to  any  portion  of  the  funds  of  the  Church.  Their  feel- 
ings may  be  best  known  by  an  examination  of  two  papers, 
presented  to  the  Reform  Assembly,  but  which  were  not  acted 
upon,  as  we  are  informed,  because  the  seceders,  as  they  were 
pleased  to  call  them,  had  commenced  a  civil  process  for  se- 
curing their  rights.  The  *  Presbyterian'  accompanied  the  pub- 
lication of  them  with  the  remark,  "  In  the  main  we  believe 
they  expressed  the  mind  of  the  Assembly." 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  187 

Dr.  PhilliiDS  offered  the  following  paper,  viz.  : — 

"  Whereas  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States, 
as  now  represented  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  same, 
have  for  years  contended  for  the  doctrines  and  order  of  the 
Gospel,  for  the  truth,  purity,  peace  and  spiritual  prosperity 
of  the  Church,  and  not  for  earthly  gain ;  and  whereas  a  por- 
tion of  what  has  heretofore  been  called  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  have  •s'oluntarily  gone  out  from  us,  and  by  their 
secession  and  separate  organization,  have  forfeited  in  law  all 
their  title  to  any  of  the  property  belonging  to  the  Presby- 
terian Church ;  and  whereas  the  General  Assembly  have  no 
desire  to  hold  or  use  any  funds  which  may  in  equity  belong 
to  said  secession  :     Therefore, 

*'  Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  ascertain 
what  portion,  if  any,  of  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the  Trustees 
of  the  General  Assembly  may  be  equitably  claimed  by  those 
who  adhere  to  the  secession,  and  report  to  the  next  General 
Assembly,  and  thus,  if  possible,  secure  an  amicable  adjust- 
ment of  our  pecuniary  affairs."* 

In  reference  to  the  same  matter,  Mr.  Breckinridge  oflfered 
the  following  paper,  viz. : — 

"  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States,  both  during  its  present  sessions  and  dur- 
ing those  of  the  last  year,  had  distinctly  and  repeatedly  ex- 
pressed its  perfect  willingness  to  settle  all  the  difficulties,  and 
especially  those  of  a  pecuniary  kind,  which  have  arisen,  or 
could  arise,  between  those  Synods  which  have  been  declared 
out  of  our  connection,  and  all  who  have  seceded  and  united 
with  them  on  the  one  part,  and  the  Church  itself  on  the 
other." 

*'This  was  indeed  the  earnest  desire  of  the  Church ;  as  well 
because  of  the  questions  involved,  turned  finally  on  questions 
purely  ecclesiastical,  as  because  money  questions  were  in  our 
view  wholly  insignificant,  compared  with  others,  which  lay 
behind  them.  And  as  we  construed  the  law  of  God,  it  seem- 
*  H.  Wood'o  History,  page  168. 


188  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

ed  better,  even  to  take  wrong  and  suffer  wrong  in  temporal 
affairs,  than  to  be  prompt  to  hale  even  nominal  Christians 
before  the  judge.  But  above  all,  we  utterly  repudiate  all 
pretensions,  from  whatever  quarter,  to  control  the  conscien- 
tious decisions  of  the  Church  of  Christ  on  matters  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  order  or  discipline,  by  civil  tribunals." 

*'  We  are  bound,  and  we  hope  prepared,  to  render  to  Caesar 
all  things  that  are  Caesar's,  but  we  are  also* bound,  and  re- 
solved, never  to  surrender  to  Caesar  the  things  which  are 
only  God's." 

"  It  is,  therefore,  with  decided  reprobation,  that  this  As- 
sembly has  learned,  not  only  that  suits  are  threatened  against 
its  Board  of  Trustees,  but  that  other  suits  have  been  actu- 
ully  commenced  against  the  officers  of  this  body,  and  sev- 
eral of  its  members,  the  object  of  which  is,  not  only  to 
prevent  the  free  action  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts,  but  to 
unchurch  the  church  itself,  by  the  action  of  civil  power." 

"  Under  the  present  state  of  these  painful  affairs,  this  As- 
sembly deems  it  a  solemn  duty  to  declare,  and  does  hereby 
declare  : 

**  1.  That  it  expects  of  its  Board  of  Trustees  the  same 
loyalty  to  the  church,  and  the  same  fidelity  to  its  divine 
Lord,  that  have  marked  their  course  in  past  times,  and  it 
hereby  pledges  to  them  its  support,  and  that  of  the  churches 
represented  in  it,  in  their  lawful  acts,  in  carrying  out  the  de- 
cisions of  the  last  and  present  Assemblies." 

"  2.  That  we  solemnly,  in  the  name  of  God,  whose  we 
are,  and  whom  we  try  to  serve,  and  on  behalf  of  his  church, 
of  which  we  are  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  and  as  commis- 
sioners constituting  its  highest  earthly  court,  do  hereby  pro- 
test against  all  attempts  to  subject  the  church  of  Christ,  in 
its  purely  ecclesiastical  action,  to  the  surveillance  or  revision 
of  the  civil  power.  And  as  free  American  citizens,  we  re- 
nounce for  ourselves  and  for  our  country,  all  pretence  to  any 
such  ruinous  power  as  it  regards  others." 

"  3.  That  the  churches  and  minorities  of  churches  in  the 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  1.89 

bounds  or  under  the  care  of  either  of  those  Synods  or  Pres- 
byteries, which  were  declared  to  be  out  of  the  ecclesiastical 
connection  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America, — or  within  its  bounds,  or  under  the  care  of  any 
seceding  Presbytery  or  Synod,  which  churches  or  minorities 
are  willing  to  adhere  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  man- 
ner and  form  repeatedly  declared  by  this  Assembly,  all  such 
churches  and  minorities  are  hereby  advised,  not  only  to  take 
steps  for  their  early  union  with  our  body,  but  also  to  protect 
themselves  in  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  rights,  to  secure 
their  corporate  property  against  the  new  sect,  and  the  ruin- 
ous principles  upon  which  their  proceedings  go."* 

Had  these  papers  been  expressive  of  the  views  of  their 
authors  merely,  upon  them  the  responsibility  of  approving 
them  might  have  been  left  to  rest,  without  remark.  But 
we  are  told  by  the  editor  of  the  "  Presbyterian  *'  that  they 
exhibit  the  views  of  the  Assembly.  That  they  were  not 
adopted  by  them,  we  are  informed,  was  because  civil  process 
had  been  commenced  by  the  Constitutional  Assembly  for  the 
recovery  of  rights  which  they  believed  had  been  violently 
taken  from  them. 

The  language  of  these  documents  is  by  no  means  remark- 
able for  Christian  courtesy  toward  the  constitutional  branch 
of  the  church.  They  are  spoken  of  as  seceders,  who  had 
"  forfeited  in  law  all  title  to  any  property  belonging  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ;" — as  litigious,  appealing  to  Ceesar  for 
a  decision  which  it  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  church 
to  give,  against  whom  the  reformers  "  had  for  years  con- 
tended for  the  doctrines  and  order  of  the  Gospel,  for  the 
truth,  purity,  peace,  and  spiritual  prosperity  of  the  church.'* 
The  sincerity  with  which  these  statements  were  made,  we 
have  no  disposition  to  call  in  question.  However  sincere  may 
have  been  their  authors,  this  fact  does  not  prove  that  they 
are  true,  and  they  doubtless  believe  with  us,  that  sincerity 
in  error,  when  the  means  of  knowing  the  truth  are  accessi- 
H:  Wood's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Controversy,  p.  169. 


190  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

ble,  does  not  exonerate  from  blame.  Were  the  things  al- 
leged in  these  papers  against  Constitutional  Presbyterians 
true,  tliey  ought  indeed  to  be  separated  from  the  church. 
Not,  however,  by  the  summary  and  unconstitutional  process 
of  excision  without  trial  and  an  opportunity  of  self-defence, 
but  by  the  application  of  Gospel  discipline. 

In  these  documents  there  are  several  things  which  we  are 
utterly  unable  to  reconcile  with  the  action  of  the  Body.  They 
both  profess  a  commendable  and  pious  disregard  "for 
earthly-gain, — that  money  questions  were  wholly  insignifi- 
cant, compared  with  others,  which  lay  behind  them." 

If  the  reader  can  reconcile  these  statements  with  the  re- 
commendation of  Mr.  Breckinridge  and  the  Assembly  itself 
in  its  great  reform  ordinance,  already  noticed,  to  minorities 
of  churches,  "  to  secure  their  corporate  property, — that 
providential  advantages,  and  important  rights,  ought  not  in 
any  case  to  be  lightl}  thrown  away,"  he  can  perform  a  task 
which  wholly  transcends  our  ability. 

He  may  also,  if  he  can,  reconcile  these  statements  and  pro- 
fessions with  the  tenacious,  iron  grasp,  with  which  they  have 
till  this  time  held,  and  now  hold  the  entire  funds  of  the 
church.  Not  a  farthing,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  as- 
certain, have  they  given  to  those  whom  they  denominate 
seceders  and  schismatics,  except  in  the  few  instances  in  which 
they  have  been  compelled  to  do  it  by  legal  decisions.  We 
cannot  but  fear  these  brethren  were  not  fully  aware  of  the 
strength  of  their  love  for  "  filthy  lucre." 

The  pious  horror  of  these  self-styled  reformers  at  the 
thought  of  appealing  to  the  civil  tribunals  of  the  country 
to  decide  which  of  the  two  Assemblies  was  organized  ac- 
cording to  the  constitution,  is  no  less  at  variance  with  their 
application  to  "  the  court  in  bank  "  to  grant  a  new  trial  af- 
ter the  decision  against  them  in  the  court  below.  For  com- 
mencing that  process  before  Judge  Rogers,  the  constitu- 
tional branch  of  the  church  were,  and  to  this  day  are,  se- 
verely censured.     Their  reasons  for  this  procedure  will  be 


LEGAL    TROCEEDINGS.  191 

given  hereafter,  and  tlie  reader   will    have  an  opportunity 
to  judge  for  himself  whether  they  are    sufficient   to  justi- 

fy  it. 

Mr.  Breckinridge's  paper  is  far  from  respectful  in  its  aspect 
toward  the  civil  tribunals  of  our  country.  Throughout,  it 
breathes  the  spirit  of  nullification  and  rebellion.  "  We  utterly 
repudiate,"  he  says,  "  all  pretensions  from  whatever  quarter, 
to  control  the  conscientious  decisions  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
on  matters  of  Christian  doctrine,  or  order,  by  the  civil  tribu- 
nals." Again  he  says,  by  what  seems  to  us  a  most  irrever- 
ent, not  to  say  profane  appeal  to  Jehovah,  '*  We  solemnly,  in 
the  name  of  God,  whose  we  are,  and  whom  w^e  try  to  serve, 
and  on  behalf  of  His  Church,  of  which  we  are  Ministers  and 
Ruling  Elders,  and  as  Commissioners  constituting  its  highest 
earthly  court,  do  hereby  protest  against  all  attempts  to  subject 
the  Church  of  Christ,  in  its  purely  ecclesiastical  action,  to  the 
surveillance  or  revision  of  the  civil  power.  We  are  bound,  and 
we  hope  prepared,  to  render  to  Caesar  all  things  that  are 
Caesar's,  but  we  are  also  bound  and  resolved,  never  to  surren- 
der to  Caesar  the  things  which  are  only  God's." 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Mr.  Breckinridge  well  under- 
stood that  the  Constitutional  Body  had  not  appealed  to  the 
civil  law  for  the  purpose  of  subjecting  "  the  Church  of  Christ 
to  the  surveillance  or  revision  of  the  civil  power,"  but  to  decide 
whether  those,  whom  he  and  his  party  denominated  schisma- 
tics, seceders,  and  grossly  disorderly,  were  really  such,  or 
sound  Presbyterians  according  to  "  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Form  of  Government ;"  also  whether  their  acts  in  cast- 
ing the  four  Synods  out  of  the  Church  without  trial,  were  au- 
thorized by  the  Constitution  or  in  direct  contravention  of  it. 
If  such  were  his  understanding  of  the  appeal  of  the  Constitu- 
tional Assembly  to  the  civil  tribunals,  we  see  not  how  he  could 
have  doubted  its  propriety.  A  court  of  justice  is  certainly 
competent  to  decide  whether  a  Church,  or  Branch  of  a  Church, 
have  or  have  not  violated  its  Constitution. 

Notwithstanding  the  solemn  protest  of  this  paper  against 


192  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

• 

submitting  the  unhappy  differences  between  the  two  Bodies 
to  the  decision  of  a  civil  tribunal,  and  determination  not  to 
submit  to  it,  the  new  basis  Assembly  appeal  from  the  court 
that  gave  judgment  against  them,  to  the  court  in  bank  for  a 
new  trial.  How  this  procedure  is  to  be  reconciled  with  their 
previous  protests  against  appealing  to  Ccesar  and  determina- 
tion not  to  submit  to  his  jurisdiction,  is  for  them  to  show. 

The  climax  of  their  inconsistencies,  however,  consists  in  the 
utter  want  of  agreement  between  their  professed  desire  for  an 
equitable  and  amicable  settlement  of  the  difficulties  be- 
tween the  two  Branches  of  the  Church,  and  their  refusal 
to  accede  to  any  proposals  made  by  the  Constitutional 
Branch,  to  secure  such  a  settlement.  We  speak  not 
now  of  negotiations  between  the  parties  previous  to  the  di- 
vision in  1838,  and  the  overture  made  by  the  Constitution- 
alists during  the  sessions  of  the  two  Assemblies.  These  have 
been  noticed  in  previous  parts  of  this  history,  and  the  reasons 
of  their  failure  stated.  From  what  was  said  and  published 
by  the  exscinding  branch  when  they  learned  that  it  was  the 
purpose  of  the  other  to  commence  civil  process  against  them, 
a  stranger  to  this  controversy  would  infer  that  the  new  basis 
Assembly  were  men  of  a  very  pacific  spirit,  and  that  the 
other  was  made  up  of  ecclesiastical  warriors, — of  men  full  of 
the  spirit  of  strife  and  war,  whose  very  element  was  contro- 
versy and  litigation.  Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  the  paper  which 
we  have  noticed,  says,  "  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States,  both  during  the  pres- 
ent sessions,  and  during  those  of  the  last  year,  had  distinctly 
and  repeatedly  expressed  its  perfect  willingness  to  settle  all 
the  difficulties,  and  especially  those  of  a  pecuniary  kind,  which 
have  arisen  or  could  arise,  between  those  Synods  which  have 
been  declared  out  of  our  connection,  and  all  who  have  sece- 
ded and  united  with  them  on  the  one  part,  and  the  Chm'ch 
itself  on  the  other." 

Statements  of  similar  import  may  be  found  in  their  Pas- 
toral Letter  of   1838  to  the  churches. 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  193 

Whether  they  were  really  as  desirous  as  theii'  language 
seemed  to  indicate  to  prevent  litigation,  and  those  from  whom 
they  differed  as  fierce  for  it,  we  will  leave  our  readers  to 
judge,  when  they  shall  have  read  that  part  of  the 

**  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Twelve,  to  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church,''^  which  we  here 
present. 

"In  the  General  Assembly,  May  20,  1839,  Judge  Darling, 
from  the  Committee  of  twelve,  made  the  following  report  in 
part: 

"The  Committee  appointed  on  the  21st  May,  1838,  'to 
advise  and  direct  to  any  legal  questions  and  pecuniary  in- 
terests that  might  require  attention  during  the  ensuing  year,' 
and  who  were  authorized  to  adopt  all  such  measures  as  they 
in  their  judgment  might  deem  proper,  to  preserve  and  main- 
tain inviolate  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  of  the  churches  under  its  jurisdiction,  entered  upon 
the  discharge  of  their  duties  immediately  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  last  General  Assembly,  deeply  impressed  with  the 
importance  of  the  interests  entrusted  to  them,  with 
their  responsibihties  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  with 
a  determination  to  exert  their  influence  to  bring  the  con- 
troversy in  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  a  speedy  termination, 
on  just  and  equitable  terms,  which  would  restore  peace  and 
harmony  to  our  beloved  Zion.  They  resolved  not  to  resort 
to  the  civil  courts  for  redress,  until  every  reasonable  hope  of 
an  amicable  adjustment  should  be  abgmdoned,  and  unless  it 
became  necessary  so  to  do  to  protect  and  preserve  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  church  which  they  represented.  The 
Trustees  elected  by  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  hav- 
ing been  denied  the  right  to  take  their  seats  at  a  regular 
meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  as  then  constituted,  and 
our  opponents  manifesting  a  determination  to  persist  in  their 
acts  of  injustice  and  oppression,  the  Committee,  with  the 


194  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

notice,  and  under  the  direction  of  their  counsel,  Josiah  Ran- 
dall  and  William   Meredith,  Esq.'s,    of  Philadelphia,   and 
George  Wood,  Esq.,  of  New  York,   caused  a  writ  of  quo 
warranto  to  be  issued,  in  the  name  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania,  at  the  relation  of  the  Hon.  James  Todd,  et. 
al.  vs.  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Green,  D.D.,  et.  al,,  to  show  cause  by 
■what  authority  they  continued  to  usurp  and  hold  the  office  of 
Trustees,  &c.     The  Committee  adopted  this  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding at  the  suggestion  of  their  legal  advisers,  believing 
that,  in  this  form  of  action,  they  would  be  enabled  to  obtain 
a  more  speedy  trial  and  decision  on  the  merits  of  the  contro- 
versy between  the  Reformed  and  Constitutional  General  As- 
semblies, and  on  the  various  points   of  law  involved  in  the 
same,  and  with  less  expense  and  excitement,  than  in  any  other 
form  of  action  which  could  be  devised.     Whilst  this  cause 
was  pending,  and  previous  to  the  trial  before  Judge  Rogers, 
at  Nisi  Prius,  the  Committee  were  informed  by  one  of  their 
counsel,  that  John  K.  Kane,  Esq.,  one  of  the  Trustees  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  who  was  of  counsel  for  the  respond- 
ents, had  stated  to  him  that  those  he  represented  were  dis- 
posed to  adjust,  amicably  and  equitably,  all  matters  in  con- 
troversy in  this  cause,  and  had  requested  him  to  ascertain 
what  terms  the  Committee  would  propose,  as  a  basis  for  an 
amicable  division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  final 
adjustment  of  all  the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  Reform- 
ed and  Constitutional  General  Assemblies.     Upon  inquiry, 
the  Committee  ascertained  that  neither  Mr.  Kane,  nor  any 
other  person,  was  authorized  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  with 
the  Committee  on  the  subject  of  a  compromise  ;  that  Mr. 
Kane  was  probably  acting  on  his  own  responsibility,  influ- 
enced by  a  most  laudable  desire  to  promote  union  and  peace 
among  the  professed  fiiends  of  the  Redeemer.     The  Com- 
mittee duly  appreciated  the    motives  which  prompted  the 
efforts  of  Mr.  Kane,  and  keeping  in  view  the  resolution  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1838,  viz. :  'That  this  body  is  willing 
to  agree  to  any  reasonable  measures  tending  to  an  amicable 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  195 

adjustment  of  the  difficulties  in  the  Presbyterian  Clmrch,and 
will  receive^  and  respectfully  consider,  any  propositions  made 
for  that  purpose/ — they  waived  all  exceptions  which  might 
have  been  taken  to  enter  into  any  negtoiation  with,  or  to 
making  any  propositions  to,  one  irresponsible  individual,  and 
promptly  requested  their  counsel  to  furnish  Mr.  Kane  with  a 
copy  of  the  following  articles  of  agreement : 

"  Articles  of  Agreement  Proposed. 

**  In  order  to  secure  an  amicable  and  equitable  adjustment 
of  the  difficulties  existing  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America ;  it  is  hereby  agreed  by  the  respec- 
tive parties,  that  the  following  shall  be  articles  on  which  a 
division  shall  be  made  and  continued. 

**  Article  I.  The  successors  of  the  body  which  held  its 
sessions  in  Ranstead  Court,  shall  hereafter  be  known  by  the 
name  and  style  of  '  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.'  The  succes- 
sors of  the  body  which  held  its  sessions  in  the  First  Presby- 
terian Church,  shall  hereafter  be  known  by  the  name  and 
style  of  *  The  General  Assembly  of  the  American  Presbyte- 
rian Church.' 

"  Article  II.  Joint  application  shall  be  made  by  the  parties 
to  this  agreement,  to  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  for  a 
charter  to  incorporate  Trustees  of  each  of  the  respective 
bodies,  securing  to  each  the  immunities  and  privileges  now 
secured  by  the  existing  charter  to  the  Trustees  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  ;  subject,  nevertheless,  to  the  limitations 
and  articles  herein  agreed  on ;  and  when  so  obtained,  the 
existing  charter  shall  be  surrendered  to  the  State. 

"  Article  III.  Churches,  ministers,  and  members  of  church- 
es as  well  as  Presbyteries,  shall  be  at  full  liberty  to  decide  to 
which  of  the  said  Assemblies  they  will  be  attached ;  and  in 
case  the  majority  of  legal  voters  of  any  congregation  shall 
prefer  to  be  connnected  with  any  Presbytery  connected  with 


196  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

the  Assembly  to  which  their  Presbytery  is  not  attached,  they 
shall  certify  the  same  to  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery, 
which  they  wish  to  leave,  and  their  connection  with  said 
Presbytery  shall  thenceforth  cease. 

"  Article  IV.  The  Theological  Seminary  of  Princeton,  the 
Western  Theological  Seminary,  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions, 
the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  the  Board  of  Education, 
with  the  funds  appertaining  to  each,  shall  be  the  property 
and  subject  to  the  exclusive  control  of  the  body  which,  ac- 
cording to  this  agreement,  shall  be  chartered  under  the  title 
of  '  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America.' 

"  This  agreement  shall  not  be  considered  a  secession  on 
the  part  of  either  body,  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  but  a  voluntary  and  amicable  di- 
vision of  this  Church  into  two  denominations,  each  retaining 
all  the  ecclesiastical  and  pecuniary  rights  of  the  whole  body, 
with  the  limitations  and  qualifications  in  the  above  articles 
specified. 

"  The  only  reply  which  the  Committee  received  to  these 
propositions  was,  that  they  could  not  be  accepted,  but  that 
the  Old  School  party  would  agree  that  the  members  of  the 
Constitutional  General  Assembly,  and  all  who  adhered  to  this 
General  Assembly,  should  be  at  liberty  to  leave  the  Presby- 
terian Church  without  molestation  from  them,  and  that  they 
should  not  be  called  Seceders.  This  reply,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  Committee,  cut  off  all  hope  of  an  amicable  and  just  settle- 
ment, and  closed  the  door  of  reconciliation.  They,  therefore, 
formally  resolved  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  make  any  further 
attempt  to  eflfect  a  compromise,  and  that  the  necessary  pre- 
parations be  made  for  the  trial  of  the  cause  now  pending." — 
Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  0/  1839,  ^:>a^e5  38,  39. 

If  our  brethren  were  really  as  desirous  for  an  equitable  and 
pacific  settlement,  and  to  prevent  litigation,  as  they  professed 
to  be,  why  was  not  this  overture  entertained  by  them  ?  Or  if 
dissatisfied  with  its  stipulations,  why  did  they  not  appoint  a 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  197 

Committee  to  negotiate  with  the  Committee  which  pre- 
sented it,  and  see  whether  terms  could  not  be  agreed  upon, 
which  would  be  satisfactory  to  both  Bodies  ?  It  is  not  for 
us,  but  for  them  to  reply  to  these  inquiries.  From  the  facts 
presented,  our  readers  have  a  right  to  form  their  own  opinion 
which  of  the  two  Bodies  w^ere  more  desirous  of  peace  and 
averse  to  litigation. 

As  all  the  eftbrts  of  the  Constitutional  Branch  of  the 
Church  to  prevent  the  latter  and  secure  the  former  had 
proved  unavailing,  nothing  remained  for  them,  but  to  sacrifice 
important  rights,  or  appeal  to  the  civil  tribunals  of  their 
country  to  decide  whether  their  Assembly  had,  or  had  not 
been  organized  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution ;  or 
whether  the  persons  elected  by  the  New-Basis  Assembly  as 
Trustees  of  tbe  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  were  such  in  reality,  or 
those  elected  to  that  office  by  the  Constitutional  Assembly. 

"  The  Committee  of  Twelve  "  in  their  report,  a  part  of 
which  we  have  already  quoted,  say,  ''  The  Trustees  elected 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  having  been  denied  the 
right  to  take  their  seats  at  a  regular  meeting  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees,  as  then  constituted,  and  our  opponents  manifest- 
ing a  determination  to  persist  in  their  acts  of  injustice  and 
oppression,  the  Committee,  with  the  notice,  and  under  the 
direction  of  their  counsel,  Josiah  Randall  and  William  Mere- 
dith, Esqs.  of  Philadelphia,  and  George  Wood,  Esq.  caused 
a  writ  of  quo  luarranto  to  be  issued,  in  the  name  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Pennsylvania,  at  the  relation  of  the  Hon. 
James  Todd,  et  al ,  vs.  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Green,  D.D.,  et  ah,  to 
show  cause  by  what  authority  they  continued  to  usurp  and 
hold  the  office  of  Trustees,  &c.  The  Committee  adopted  this 
mode  of  proceeding  at  the  suggestion  of  their  legal  advisers, 
believing  that,  in  this  form  of  action,  they  would  be  enabled 
to  obtain  a  more  speedy  trial  and  decision  on  the  merits  of 
the  controversy  between  the  Reformed  and  Constitutional 
Assemblies,  and  on  the  various  points  of  law  involved  in  the 
9 


198  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

same,  and  with  less  expense  and  excitement  than  in  an}'-  other 
form  of  action  which  could  be  devised." 

The  trial  of  this  cause  *'  before  Hon.  Molton  C.  Rogers 
and  a  special  juiy/'  commenced  March  4th,  1839. 

The  cause  was  ably  argued  by  the  learned  counsel  on  both 
sides,  and  was  closed  March  20th  by  the  delivery  of  the 
charge  of  Judge  Rogers  and  the  verdict  of  the  Jury  in  favor 
of  the  Constitutional  Assembly.  As  the  charge  of  Judge 
Rogers  is  a  document  of  great  importance,  well  worthy  of 
being  transmitted  to  posterity  and  preserved  and  studied  by 
them,  we  give  it  entire. — See  Appendix  A. 

This  result  was  exceedingly  ungrateful  to  the  Reformers. 
Both  the  charge  of  the  Judge  and  the  verdict  of  the  Jury, 
were  a  decided  condemnation  of  the  excision  of  the  four 
Synods  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  of  the  manner  of  organizing  their  Assembly  in 

1838,  and  a  complete  vindication  of  the  organization  of  the 
Constitutional  Assembly.  This  result  of  the  trial  seemed 
at  once  to  remove  all  their  conscientious  scruples  in  regard 
to  an  appeal  to  Caesar  to  decide  controversies  between  pro- 
fessing Christians.  By  their  counsel,  they  applied  to  **  the 
Court  in  Bank," — a  tribunal  consisting  of  "  all  the  Judges, 
sitting  in  a  body  to  determine  questions  of  law,"  for  a  new 
trial.    The  case  came  on  for  adjudication  at  the  March  term, 

1839,  and  the  Cour,t,  through  Judge  Gibson,  gave  a  decision 
in  favor  of  a  new  trial.* 

That  our  readers  may  be  furnished  with  the  means  of 
forming  an  accurate  judgment  in   respect  lo  the  grounds 

■*  The  opinion  was  really  by  three  of  the  Judges  of  the  court,  viz., 
Messrs.  Gibson,  Houston  and  Kennedy. 

Judge  Sergeant  being  a  member  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes'  congrega- 
tion, did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  take  part  in  the  case,  and  Judge  Rogers 
dissented. 

Judges  Houston  and  Kennedy  were  both  attached  to  the  exscind- 
ing portion  of  the  Church,  and  the  former  was  a  strong  partisan  of 
that  body.     They  felt  none  of  the  delicacy  of  Judge  Sergeant. 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  199 

on  which  the  Court  granted  a  new  trial,  we  give  the  opinion 
of  Chief  Justice  Gibson  entire. —  See  Appendix  B, 

After  the  decision  of  the  Court  in  Bank,  the  Constitu- 
tional party  concluded  to  withdraw  the  suit. 

The  issues  of  these  trials  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Penn- 
sylvania are  these :  In  the  trial  before  Judge  Rogers,  he 
charged  the  jury  strongly  in  favor  of  the  Constitutional  As- 
sembly, and  the  jury,  after  an  hour's  deliberation,  rendered 
a  verdict  in  their  favor.  The  Assembly,  on  the  New  Basis, 
appealed  to  the  Court  in  Bank  for  a  new  trial,  and  the  Court 
granted  it. 

Some  things  in  the  charge  of  Judge  Rogers,  and  the 
opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Gibson,  demand  a  moment's  at- 
tention. Judge  Rogers's  charge  contains  a  lucid  statement 
of  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  a  concise,  but  accurate  history  of  the  unhappy 
controversy,  which  resulted  in  its  division. 

Both  Judges  are  agreed  in  the  opinion,  that  "  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801  was  strictly  constitutional."  If  this  opinion 
be  correct,  the  strongest  alleged  reason  for  the  excision  of 
the  Synods,  is  no  reason  at  all.  Of  course,  if  the  act  be  jus- 
tified, it  must  be  on  other  grounds.  The  candid  and  intelli- 
gent reader  of  the  foregoing  pages,  we  trust,  is  fully  con- 
vinced that  there  are  no  grounds  on  which  the  acts  of  excis- 
ion can  be  justified — that  they  deserve  universal  and  ever- 
lasting reprobation.  Of  course  the  refusal  of  the  New  Basis 
A  ssembly  to  enter  the  names  of  the  Commissioners  from  the 
disowned  Synods  on  the  roll  of  the  Assembly  was  arbitrary 
and  unrighteous,  and  a  gross  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
quite  sufficient  to  justify  the  measui'es,  adopted  by  the  Con- 
stitutional Branch  of  the  Church,  to  secure  a  regularly  or- 
ganized Assembly. 

Judge  Rogers  was  decidedly  of  the  opinion,  that  Dr.  El- 
liott, the  Moderator,  by  refusing  to  put  the  appeal  of  Dr. 
Mason,  was  guilty  of  *'  a  dereliction  of  duty — a  usurpation 
of  authority,  which  called  for  the  censure  of  the  house." 


200  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

Again  he  says :  ''  It  is  tlie  opinion  of  the  Court,  that  the 
General  Assembly  has  a  right  to  depose  the  Moderator, 
upon  sufficient  cause.  This  power  is  necessarj^  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  house  ;  otherwise  the  Moderator,  instead  of 
being  the  servant,  would  be  the  master  of  the  house." 

He  was  also  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Cleaveland  had  a 
right  to  put  the  question,  that  Dr.  Beman  should  be  the 
Moderator.  "  There  is  no  doubt  the  house  may  elect  a  Mode- 
rator, although  the  seats  of  some  of  the  members  are  contest- 
ed." He  says,  moreover,  "  That  the  fact  that  Mr.  Cleave- 
land put  the  question  instead  of  the  Moderator,  the  cries  of 
order  when  this  was  in  progress,  the  omission  of  some  of 
the  formula  usually  observed,  when  there  is  no  contest  and 
no  excitement,  .  .  .  wall  not  vitiate  the  organization.  ..." 

Judge  Gibson  was  of  a  different  opinion.  He  says  :  "  The 
refusal  of  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator, 
would  be  no  ground  for  the  degradation  of  the  officer,  at  the 
call  of  a  minority  ;  nor  could  it  impose  on  the  majority  an 
obligation  to  vote  on  a  question  put  unofficially  and  out  of 
the  usual  course.  The  choice  of  a  Moderator  to  supplant 
the  officer  in  the  chair,  even  if  he  were  removable  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  commissioners,  would  seem  to  have  been 
unconstitutional.  But  he  was  not  removable  by  them,  be- 
cause he  had  not  derived  his  office  from  them,  nor  was  he 
answerable  to  them  for  the  use  of  his  power.  He  was  not 
their  Moderator.  He  was  the  mechanical  instrument  of 
their  organization  ;  and  till  that  was  accomplished,  they  were 
subject  to  his  rule — not  he  to  theirs.''^ 

If  this  opinion  be  correct,  the  Moderator  of  the  previous 
Assembly,  or  to  use  the  language  of  the  Judge,  '*  the  me- 
chanical instrument  of  their  organization"  might  persist  in 
his  refusal  to  put  a  question  during  his  lifetime,  and  utterly 
prevent  the  transaction  of  all  business  ;  nay,  the  organization 
of  the  body.  According  to  this  opinion  of  Judge  Gibson, 
the  Twenty- Sixth  Congress  was  not  constitutionally  organi- 
zed, because  Mr.  Adams  put  the  question  on  a  motion  for 


LEGAL    TROCEEDINGS.  201 

the  removal  of  the  Clerk  of  ilie  House  of  Representatives  and 
the  appointment  of  another  in  his  place. 

The  Judge  also  assumes  it  as  an  incontrovertible  fact  that 
the  Presbyteries  embraced  in  the  exscinded  Sj-nods,  were 
formed  upon  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Union.  On  previous 
pages  of  this  history,  it  has  been  shown  that  the  Plan  of 
Union  had  nothing  to  do  with  their  formation — that  they 
were  organized  in  strict  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  Consequently  the  Judge's  as- 
sumption is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  facts. 

Another  assumption  of  the  Judge,  equally  unfounded 
with  the  one  just  noticed,  is,  that  the  Assembly  unites  **  the 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial  functions  of  the  govern- 
ment ;"  that  **its  acts  are  referable  to  the  one  or  the  other 
of  them,  according  to  the  capacity  in  which  it  sat  when  they 
were  performed."  The  reader  has  but  to  turn  to  chapter 
XII.,  section  VI.  of  the  Form  of  Government,  to  satisfy 
himself  that  the  Assembly  has  no  legislative  power  what- 
ever— that  it  pertains  exclusively  to  the  Presbyteries. 

In  connection  with  the  last  mentioned  unauthorized  as- 
sumption, the  Judge  makes  two  admissions,  which  are  too 
important  to  be  passed  over  unnoticed.  One  is  that  the 
Synods,  notwithstanding  all  that  had  been  alleged  by  the 
exscinders  conc^ning  their  heresies  and  disorders,  had  done 
nothing  deserving  of  censure  :  the  other  is  that  the  excision, 
as  a  legislative  act,  had  the  appearance  of  injustice,  and  we 
think  his  language  implies  that  he  believed  it  had  something 
of  the  reality.  He  says  :  "  Now  the  apparent  injustice  of 
the  measure  arises  from  the  contemplation  of  it  as  a  judicial 
sentence  pronounced  against  parties  who  were  neither  cited 
nor  heard,  which  it  evidently  was  not.  Even  as  a  legislative 
act,  it  may  have  been  a  hard  one,  though  certainly  constitu- 
tional and  strictly  just."  "  Had  the  exscinded  Synods  been 
cut  off  by  a  judicial  sentence  without  hearing  or  notice,  the 
act  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  cardinal  principles  of 
natural  justice,  and  consequently  void." 


202  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

We  would  like  to  be  informed  by  the  learned  Judge  how- 
decapitation  or  hanging,  which  would  be  *'  contrary  to  the 
cardinal  principles  of  natural  justice,"  as  a  judicial  act, 
could  be  just  as  a  legislative  act.  We  confess  we  have  not 
discernment  enough  to  see  how  there  could  be  more  in- 
justice in  the  one  case  than  the  other. 

In  a  subsequent  suit  in  Pennsylvania,  brought  up  by 
appeal  before  the  Supreme  Court,  Judge  Gibson  explained 
some  of  the  principles  on  which  he  had  given  his  opinion  in 
the  Court  in  Bank  in  favor  of  the  Reformers.  The  property 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  York  was  of  considerable 
value.  A  small  minority  in  it  were  decidedly  in  favor  of 
the  New  Basis  Assembly.  In  conformity  with  the  recom- 
mendation of  its  great  reforming  ordinance,  they  claimed  to 
be  the  true  Presbyterian  Church  in  York,  and  brought  suit 
against  the  constitutional  portion  of  the  Church  for  the  pro- 
perty. The  case  was  tried  before  Judge  Hays,  and  decided 
in  favor  of  the  Constitutional  party. 

The  Reformers  regarded  Judge  Gibson's  opinion  in  the 
Court  in  Bank  as  deciding  that  they  were  the  only  orthodox 
Presbyterians,  and  the  Assembly  of  the  exscinders  the  only 
true  Assembly,  and  they  doubtless  felt  if  they  could  bring 
the  suit  before  him,  he  would  reverse  the  decision  of  the 
lower  Court.  In  this  they  were  disappointed.  He  affirmed 
the  decision  of  the  lower  Court,  and  decided  that  the  pro- 
perty belonged  to  the  Constitutional  portion  of  the  Church. 

In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  to  the  astonishment 
and  deep  regret  of  the  minority,  he  explained  some  of  the 
grounds  of  his  opinion  in  the  Court  in  Bank.  He  says, 
"  There  was  not  merely  a  secession  of  particles,  leaving  the 
original  mass  entire,  but  the  original  mass  was  split  into  two 
fragments  of  nearly  equal  magnitude ;  and  though  it  was 
held  by  this  Court,  in  the  Commonwealth  v.  Green,  5  Wheat. 
Rep.  531,  that  the  party  which  happened  to  be  in  office  by 
means  of  its  numerical  superiority  at  the  time  of  the  division, 
was  that  which  was  entitled  to  represent  it  and  perform  the 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  203 

functions  of  the  original  body,  it  was  not  because  the  minor- 
ity were  thouglit  to  be  anything  else  than  Presbyterian,  but 
because  a  popular  body  is  known  only  by  its  government  or 
head.  That  they  differed  from  tlie  majority  in  doctrine  or 
discipline  was  not  pretended,  though  it  was  alleged  that  they 
did  not  maintain  the  scriptural  warrant  of  ruling  elders.  But 
the  difference  in  this  respect  had  been  tolerated  if  not  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Assembly  itself,  which,  with  full  knowledge  of 
it,  had  allowed  the  heterodox  Synods  to  grow  up  as  a  part  of 
the  Church ;  and  it  could  not  therefore  have  been  viewed  as 
radical  or  essential.  We  were  called,  however,  to  pass,  not 
on  a  question  of  heresy,  for  we  would  have  been  incompe- 
tent to  decide  it,  but  on  the  regularity  of  the  meeting  at 
which  the  trustees  were  chosen.  I  mention  this  to  show 
that  we  did  not  determine  that  the  exscision  was  expurgation, 
and  not  division.  Indeed,  the  measure  would  seem  to  have 
been  as  decisively  revolutionary  as  would  be  an  exclusion  of 
particular  States  from  tho  Federal  Union  for  the  adoption  of 
an  anti-republican  form  of  government.  The  excluded  Syn- 
ods, gathering  to  themselves  the  disaffected  in  other  quarters 
of  the  Church,  formed  themselves  into  a  distinct  body,  gov- 
erned by  a  supreme  judicatory  so  like  its  fellow  as  to  pass 
for  its  twin  brother,  and  even  lay  claim  to  the  succession. 
That  the  Old  School  party  succeeded  to  the  privileges  and 
property  of  the  Assembly  was  not  because  it  was  more  Pres- 
byterian than  the  other,  but  because  it  was  stronger ;  for  had 
it  been  the  weaker,  it  would  have  been  the  party  excluded, 
and  the  New  School  party,  exercising  the  government  as  it 
then  had  done,  would,  have  succeeded  in  its  stead,  and  thus 
the  doctrine  pressed  upon  us  would  have  made  title  to  Church 
property  the  sport  of  accident.  In  that  event  an  attempt  to 
deprive  the  Old  School  congregations  of  their  churches,  for  an 
act  of  the  majority,  in  withdrawing  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Assembly,  would  have  loaded  the  New  School  party  with 
such  a  weight  of  popular  odium  as  would  have  sunk  it. 
Here  then  was  the  original  mass  divided  into  two  parts  of 


204  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

nearly  equal  magnitude  and  similar  structure ;  and  what  was 
a  congregation  in  the  predicament  before  us  to  do  ?  It  was 
not  bound  to  follow  the  party  which  was  successful  in  the 
conflict  merely  because  superiority  of  numbers  had  given  it 
the  victory." — See  Waits  and  Serjeant's  Reports,  Vol.  I., 
/pages  38,  39. 

Here  the  Judge  gives  the  real  ground  of  his  opinion  in  the 
Court  in  Bank.  He  gave  it  in  favor  of  the  reformers  not  be- 
cause they  were  more  orthodox  in  doctrine  or  in  practice, 
more  strictly  conformed  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  but  because  they  were  the  majority.  Conse- 
quently had  the  constitutional  branch  of  the  Church  in  1831, 
1832,  1833,  1834,  and  1836,  when  they  were  the  majoirty, 
cast  out  the  Synods  of  Pliiladelphia  and  Pittsburg  after  the 
manner  of  their  exscinding  brethren,  seized  and  appropriated 
the  entire  funds  of  the  Church,  exhorted  minorities  in  all  the 
churches  to  declare  themselves  the  orthodox,  the  only  true 
Presbyteiians,  and  claimed  all  the  property,  and  thus  per- 
petuated their  power,  the  law  would  have  protected  them. 
But  would  it  have  been  morally  right  ?  Oui'  brethren  of  the 
new  basis,  we  are  persuaded,  will  not  affirm  that  it  would. 
We  doubt  not  they  will  reject  the  logic  and  morality  of  the 
Judge's  opinion  no  less  decidedly  than  we  do. 

The  judge  himself  admits  that  had  our  branch  of  the  Church 
adopted  this  course  it  would  have  been  suicidal.  He  says  it 
"  would  have  loaded  the  New  School  party  with  such  a  weight 
of  popular  odium  as  would  have  sunk  it." 

To  this  opinion  of  the  Judge  we  give  our  unqualified  as- 
sent. It  bears  hard,  however,  upon  our  brethren  of  the  New 
Basis.  If  just,  how  are  they  to  bear  up  under  "  a  weight  of 
popular  odium,"  which  would  have  crushed  our  branch  of 
the  Church  ?  We  leave  them  and  posterity  in  the  coming 
time,  when  misapprehension  and  prejudice  shall  have  passed 
away,  to  answer  this  inquiry. 

Other  parts  of  the  Judge's  opinion  are  equally  adverse  to 
our  brethren.     They  had  maintained  that  the  excision  was  a 


LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS.  205 

necessary  expurgation,  and  that  those  Tvho  united  with  the 
exscinded  were  seceders,  and  they  beheved  that  the  Judge  in 
dehvering  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  Bank  had  so  decided. 
These  positions,  his  opinion  in  the  case  of  the  Churcli  in  York, 
exphcitly  denies.  He  says  the  Court  "  did  not  determine 
that  the  excision  was  expurgation,  and  not  division."  He 
even  goes  further.  He  says,  "  the  measure  would  seem  to 
have  been  as  decisively  revolutionary  as  would  be  an  ex- 
clusion of  particular  States  from  the  Federal  Union  for  the 
adoption  of  an  anti-republican  forni  of  government."  He 
affirms  that  the  action  of  the  Assembly  of  which  we  com- 
plain, "  was  no  less  than  a  dismemberment  of  the  Presby- 
terian Body,  not  indeed  by  disorganization  of  it,  or  an  entire 
reduction  of  it  to  its  primitive  elements,  but  by  an  excision. 
There  was  not  merely  a  secession  of  particles,  leaving  the 
original  mass  entire,  but  the  original  mass  was  split  into  two 
fragments."  And  the  Judge  considers  each  equally  Presbyte- 
rian,— "  each  so  like  its  fellow  as  to  pass  for  its  twin-brother." 
With  one  exception  the  Judge  decides  that  in  the  former  suit 
the  claims  of  the  Constitutional  Branch  of  the  Church  were  as 
strong:  as  those  of  the  New  Basis.  At  the  time  of  the  ex- 
cision  the  latter  were  the  stronger  party. 

There  have  been  a  few  other  suits  which  merit  a  brief 
notice. 

In  the  Church  of  Neshammony,  Pennsylvania,  the  New 
Basis  Party,  a  minority,  claimed  to  be  the  only  true  Presby- 
terians, and  sought  to  obtain  the  property,  but  they  were 
unsuccessful. 

A  minority  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Florida,  Orange 
Co.,  N.  Y.,  did  the  same,  and  with  the  same  result. 

"Another  suit  of  the  same  character  was  brought  by  the 
Reform  Party,  in  the  Church  of  Somers,  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  They  informed  the  Constitutional  Party  that  they 
were  the  only  true  Presbyterians,  and  that  they  must  have 
the  Church  property,  house,  parsonage,  &c.  The  Constitu- 
tional Party,  who  were  the  majoiity,  proposed  that  the  two 
9* 


206  LEGAL    PROCEEDINGS. 

parties  sliould  use  the  Churcli  alternately,  and  that  the  ques- 
tion concerning  property  should  be  settled  by  compromise. 
But  the  Reform  party  would  not  compromise.  The  Clerk  of 
the  congregation  being  on  their  side,  they  took  possession  of 
records,  church,  parsonage,  and  all.  Being  secure,  as  they 
thought,  they  leased  the  parsonage  to  a  tenant,  and  lay  quiet- 
ly '  within  the  fortifications  of  the  New  Basis.' 

"  The  old  trustees  had  no  other  alternative  left  but  to  de- 
cide the  matter  by  a  law-suit.  They  commenced  an  action 
of  ejectment  for  the  parsonage.  After  a  patient  hearing,  the 
jury  gave  a  verdict  for  the  Constitutional  Party  without 
leaving  their  seats."* 

The  results  of  these  legal  investigations  and  decisions  are 
briefly  these :  With  the  exception  of  the  Court  in  Bank,  in 
Pennsylvania,  all  of  them  are  decidedly  favorable  to  the  Con- 
stitutional Branch  of  the  Church.  That,  by  ordering  a  new 
trial,  which  they  have  not  chosen  to  bring  to  an  issue,  was 
adverse  to  them.  Considered,  however,  in  connection  with 
statements  made  respecting  the  ground  of  that  decision,  it  is 
very  little  in  favor  of  the  New  Basis  Body.  As  we  have 
seen.  Judge  Gibson  did  not  decide  to  grant  a  new  trial,  be- 
cause he  considered  those  who  denominated  themselves  the 
orthodox,  true  "  Old  School  Presbyterians,"  any  more  worthy 
of  these  epithets  and  appellations,  than  those  whom  they  de- 
nominated "  heterodox,  schismatics,  seceders,  the  new  sect, 
and  New  School  Presbyterians,"  but  simply  because  they 
were  a  majority.  The  judgment  of  the  Court  in  Bank,  order- 
ing a  new  trial,  was  evidently  given  upon  the  unrighteous 
principle  that  "  might  makes  figlity 

The  legal  decisions  in  this  unhappy  controversy  establish 
two  points  of  great  importance.  One  is,  that  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Courts  both  bodies  are  sound  orthodox  Presby- 
terians :  the  other,  that  in  cases  of  litigation  for  church  pro- 
perty, it  should  be  given  to  the  majority. 

See  oimdons  of  the  Hon.  Samuel  Bl.  Hopkins,  Hon.  George 
Wood,  ami  Chancellor  Kent,  Appendix  C. 

*  Woods'  History,  pages  203,  204 


MEASURES  TAKEN  BY  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  BRANCH  OF  THE  CHURCH  TO  UNITE 
THE  TWO  IN  ONE  BODY. 

That  the  constitutional  branch  of  the  church  were  strong- 
ly adverse  to  division,  and  desirous  after  it  had  been  effected 
to  have  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  it  settled  without  Uti- 
gation,  has  been  clearly  shown  by  facts  placed  before  our 
readers  on  previous  pages  of  this  history.  Facts  now  to  be 
presented  will  make  it  equally  evident  that  they  have  since 
been  governed  by  the  same  pacific  spirit. 

In  1846  the  two  Assemblies  met  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 
On  page  11th  of  the  minutes  of  the  Constitutional  Assem- 
bly, we  find  the  following  minute,  viz. : 

**Rev.  A.  W.  Campbell  moved,  that  the  committee  on 
devotional  exercises  be  authorized  to  confer  with  a  similar 
committee  of  the  General  Assembly,  meeting  in  the  Tenth 
Presbyterian  Church  of  this  city,  in  reference  to  a  united 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

"The  motion  was  carried  unanimously." 

The  report  of  this  committee,  and  the  action  of  the  As- 
sembly in  reference  to  it,  are  recorded  on  pages  21st  and 
2 2d  of  the  Minutes,  and  are  as  follow,  viz. : 

"  The  committee  on  devotional  exercises  presented  a  re- 
port as  to  the  result  of  a  conference  with  a  similar  com- 
mittee of  the  other  Assembly,  in  reference  to  a  united  cel- 
ebration of  the  Lord's  Sitpper,  which  was  adopted,  and  is  as 
follows : 


208  EFFORTS    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL 

"  The  committee  on  devotional  exercises,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  resolution  authorizing  them  to  confer  with  a 
similar  committee  of  the  Assembly,  meetinof  in  the  Tenth 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  reference  to  a  united  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  report, 

"That  they  presented  to  the  committee  of  the  Annual 
Assembly  a  certified  copy  of  the  resolution  passed  by  this 
Body,  accompanied  by  the  following  letter,  addressed  to 
the  chairman  of  said  committee  : 

*'  '  Dear  Brother — It  devolves  upon  us,  as  chairman  and 
secretary  of  the  committee  on  devotional  exercises  of  the 
Triennial*  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
convened  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  city,  to 
present  for  your  consideration  the  above  resolutio-o. 

"  '  Should  the  foregoing  proposal  meet  the  approval  of 
yourself  and  of  your  Assembly,  it  would  aiFord  us  great 
pleasure  as  a  committee  to  confer  with  you  at  such  time  and 
place  as  you  may  designate. 

"  '  Wishing  you,  and  the  Assembly  with  whc>m  you  are 
associated,  grace,  mercy,  and  peace  from  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  v/e  are  yours,  affectionately, 

"  '  ALFRED  E.  CAMPBELL,  Chairman. 

"  *  Charles  H.  Read,  Secretary.' 

**  To  our  proposal  we  have  received  the  following  answer, 
through  the  Rev.  Daniel  Baker,  one  of  the  committee  on 
devotional  exercises : 

"Extract  from  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  in 
session  at  Philadel2ohia,  Mcty  2Sth,  1846: 
"  *  The  committee  on  devotional  exercises,  having  reported 
to  the  General  Assembly  a  communication  from  a  similar 
committee  of  the  General  Assembly  in  session  in  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church,  representing  that  the  said  Assembly 

*  At  that  time  the  Constitutional  Assembly  met  every  third  year; 
but  like  the  other^  they  now  meet  annually. 


PRESBYTERIANS    FOR    UNION.  209 

has  authorized  its  committee  to  confer  with  the  committee 
of  this  Assembly  in  relation  to  a  joint  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  by  the  two  bodies  ;  it  was  ordered,  that  the 
committee  respectfully  acknowledge  and  reciprocate  the 
courtesy  of  the  communication,  and  say  in  reply,  that  while 
this  Assembly  recognize  the  above-mentioned  body  as  a 
branch  of  the  church  of  our  common  Lord,  and  for  this 
reason  would,  as  individuals,  under  appropriate  circum- 
stances, unite  with  our  brethren  in  the  celebration  of  di- 
vine ordinances,  yet,  as  this  Assembly  has  never,  in  its  cor- 
porate and  official  capacity,  united  with  any  other  ecclesi- 
astical body  in  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  judges  it 
inexpedient  to  institute  a  new  usage  at  this  time, 

"  *  On  motion,  the  committee  on  devotional  exercises  were 
directed  to  communicate  a  copy  of  the  above  minute  to 
the  committee  of  the  other   Assembly. 

"  *  Attest,  Willis  Lobd, 

'*  ^Stated  Olerk  of  the  General  Assembly.^  " 

*•  We  can  only  regret  that  the  proposal,  made  in  the  most 
fraternal  manner,  and  passed  by  a  unanimous  vote,  did  not 
meet  with  a  cordial  response  in  the  other  Assembly.  We 
have  long  seen,  that  while  the  two  Assemblies  were  hold- 
ing correspondence  with  many  of  the  same  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  and  in  their  respective  Synods  and  Presbyteries 
maintaining  the  usual  courtesies  of  correspondence,  and 
freely  exchanging  pulpits  with  each  other,  nothing  had 
been  done,  in  our  official  capacity,  to  show  to  the  world 
that  we  recoQfnized  each  other  as  brethren.  And  as  the 
world  had  seen  the  jarring  and  contention  that  existed  in 
former  years  between  the  two  Assemblies,  it  seemed  to  be 
demanded  from  both,  to  manifest,  by  some  public  act,  like 
that  of  the  united  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that, 
though  we  were  separated,  we  were  07ie  in  Christ,  and  would 
love  and  treat  each  other  as  brethren.  And  though  we  are 
the  injured  party,  our  motives  and  our  ministerial  charac- 


210  EFFORTS    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL 

ter  having  been  impeached,  and  some  of  us  belonging  to 
Presbyteries  and  churches  who  were  exscinded  by  the  acts 
of  1837,  still  it  was  our  earnest  wish  to  extend  to  them 
the  hand  of  Christian  charity,  to  forgive  and  forget,  as  we 
pray  to  be  forgiven  of  our  God." 

*'  It  is,  therefore,  to  us,  a  source  of  deep  regret,  that  our 
brethren  of  the  other  Assembly  did  not  manifest  a  disposi- 
tion to  unite  with  us,  and  by  their  influence  and  example  aid 
us  in  doing  away  the  reproach  and  the  odium  which  have 
been  heaped  upon  the  Presbyterian  Church.  But  though 
we  may  not  as  an  Assembly,  under  existing  circumstances, 
unite  with  our  brethren  of  the  other  Assembly  in  a  joint  cel- 
ebration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  still  it  is  our  sincere  prayer, 
that  we  may  meet  with  them  in  the  General  Assembly  and 
Church  of  the  First-Born  in  Heaven,  and  sit  down  with  them 
at  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb." 

The  reason  assigned  by  our  brethren  of  the  New  Basis  for 
refusing  to  accede  to  the  proposition  of  the  Constitutional 
Assembly  to  unite  with  them  in  commemorating  the  death 
of  their  common  Lord  and  Redeemer,  was  the  fact  that  in 
their  "  corporate  and  official  capacity,"  they  had  never  done 
it,  and  then  deemed  it  inexpedient.  With  some,  doubtless, 
this  was  the  chief  reason.  It  was  our  lot,  however,  to  listen  to 
a  protracted  debate  in  their  Assembly  upon  the  propriety  of 
the  proposed  joint  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  we 
know  that  other  reasons  were  assigned  for  refusing  to  accede 
to  the  proposition,  made  by  our  Assembly,  and  we  distinctly 
recollect  that  one  was  tliat  it  would  be  virtually  undoing  all 
that  ihey  had  done  by  the  exscinding  acts  and  the  measures 
subsequently  adopted  to  purify  the  Church.  Their  speeches 
furnished  unmistakable  evidence  that  they  were  not  prepared 
to  meet  their  brethren  whom  they  had  violently  cast  out  of 
the  Church,  and  slandered  as  grossly  heretical,  at  the  table 
of  their  redeeming  Saviour  and  God. 

Other  members  of  their  Assembly  advocated  the  meas- 
ure with  a  spirit  of  Christian  liberahty  and  zeal,  which  did 


PRESBYTERIANS    FOR    UNION.  211 

them  immortal  honor,  till  they  saw  that  the  strong  opposi- 
tion of  some  of  their  brethren  to  the  measure  rendered  the 
adoption  of  it  inexpedient,  if  not  impossible. 

In  1850  the  Presbytery  of  Rochester  sent  an  overture  to 
both  Assemblies,  requesting  them  "  to  adopt  measures  to 
effect  a  union  between  the  two  b;  anches  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church." 

Each  Assembly  appointed  a  committee  to  consider  this 
overture  and  report  thereon  to  the  Body.  The  Chairman  of 
the  Constitutional  Assembly  was  the  late  lamented  Dr. 
Erskine  Mason.  In  his  report,  after  having  stated  what  the 
Assembly  had  previously  done  to  effect  a  union  of  the  two 
Bodies,  but  without  success,  he  thus  concluded  his  report : 

"  These  propositions  and  overtures  were  all  made  in  good 
faith,  and  with  an  earnest  desire  and  hope  that  they  might 
be  met  in  the  spirit  which  prompted  them." 

*'  The  result  is  a  matter  of  history,  and  is  now  before  the 
world.  We  do  not  pretend  to  question  the  motives  of  our 
brethren  in  rejecting  them ;  we  yield  to  them  what  we  claim 
for  ourselves,  honesty  of  purpose  and  sincere  convictions  of 
duty.  We  stated  only  the  facts,  and  do  so  to  show  that  we 
cannot,  as  a  Body,  at  the  present  time,  take  any  farther  action 
in  this  mattei"." 

"  While  we  are  constrained  to  come  to  this  conclusion,  we 
should  be  untrue  to  ourselves  before  God  and  the  world,  did 
we  not  frankly  avow  our  readiness  to  meet,  in  a  spirit  of  fra- 
ternal kindness  and  Christian  love,  any  overtures  which  may 
be  made  to  us  by  the  other  Body." — Minutes  of  the  Asse77i- 
hly  of  1850,  Images  322  and  323. 

The  Committee  of  the  New  Basis  Assembly  on  the  over- 
ture from  the  Presbytery  of  Rochester,  "  recommended  the 
adoption  of  the  following  minute  in  relation  to  it." 

"  This  Assembly  having  in  former  years  (see  Minutes  of 
1838,  pages  35  and  36,  and  Minutes  of  1842,  page  32),  fully 
declared  that  it  was  not  its  intention  *  to  cause  any  sound 
Presbyterian  to  be  permanently  separated  from  our  connec- 


212  EFFORTS    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL 

tion/  and  having  provided  a  mode  of  return  to  our  Body  (see 
Minutes  of  1838,  page  36),  on  principles  which  have  seemd 
adapted  to  preserve  the  purity  and  peace  of  our  churches, 
consider  it  inexpedient  to  take  any  further  action  on  the  sub- 
ject at  this  time.  Yet  the  Assembly  would  reiterate  its  de- 
sire to  see  all  sound  Presbyterians  re-united  in  one  commu- 
nion, according  to  the  doctrine  and  polity  of  our  standards, 
and  would  affectionately  invite  all  such  to  seek  this  union  in 
the  ways  that  are  now  open  to  them." 

We  envy  not  the  hand  which  penned,  nor  the  heart  which 
dictated  this  report.  Still  less  do  we  covet  the  reputation 
of  the  Assembly  which  adopted  it,  half  a  century  hence. 
Its  chief  characteristic  is  the  slanderous  insinuation  that  most 
of  the  ministers  and  churches  in  connection  with  the  Consti- 
tutional Assembly,  are  "  not  sound  Presbyterians,''^  and  it 
reminds  those  that  are,  that  they  can  be  received  into  their 
Body,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  having  complied  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Constitution,  but  only  by  adopting  the 
New  Basis  of  1837  and  1838.  This  report,  be  it  remem- 
bered, was  adopted  by  the  Assembly  thirteen  years  after 
they  thrust  out  of  the  Church  with  ruthless  violence  the 
four  Synods ; — a  period,  it  would  seem,  quite  sufficient  for 
passion  to  give  place  to  reason,  and  prejudice  to  candor,  and 
the  exercise  of  Christian  love. 

As  little  is  the  writer  of  an  editorial  article  upon  this 
minute,  which  was  published  in  the  Presbyterian  of  July 
20th  of  that  year,  to  be  envied  as  its  author  and  the  Body 
which  adopted  it.     We  quote  its  closing  paragraph. 

"  The  process  of  re-union  is  now  going  on  ;  those  churches 
and  ministers  that  are  not  pleased  with  their  present  position 
are  gradually  transferring  their  relations.  Since  the  debate 
on  the  subject  in  the  New  School  Assembly,  it  seems  to  be 
agreed  on  all  hands  that  no  union  en  masse  can  be  effected. 
But  a  more  excellent  way  is  for  all  those  who  think  alike  to 
get  together.  When  all  think  alike  we  shall  all  be  to- 
gether." 


PRESBYTERIANS    FOR    UNION.  213 

This  language  and  that  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  overture  from  the  Presbytery  of  Rochester  make  it  un- 
deniably evident  that  the  only  union  which  the  Reformers 
contemplate,  is,  by  withdrawing  ministers  and  churches  from 
our  body  and  attaching  them  to  theirs.  Absolution,  not 
union,  is  their  policy. 

One  ignorant  of  the  actual  state  of  things  in  their  branch 
of  the  Church  Avould  infer  from  their  language  that  they  are 
"  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same 
judgment."  Such,  however,  we  are  certain,  is  not  the  fact. 
Not  a  few  in  connection  with  tlieir  Assembly  approve  of  the 
"  statement  of  true  doctrine"  presented  by  the  minority  of 
the  Assembly  of  1837,  and  adopted  by  the  Auburn  Conven- 
tionj  and  likewise  of  the  tolerant  principles  of  the  adopting 
act  of  1729.  But  as  they  sit  down  quietly  under  acts  which 
they  do  not  approve,  and  make  no  eflforts  to  procure  the  re- 
moval of  the  new  basis  created  in  1837  and  1838,  they  are 
freely  tolerated.  So  long  as  they  contribute  to  their  boards 
and  do  not  oppose  the  carrying  out  of  their  ecclesiastical  pol- 
ity, they  will  doubtless  be  left  undisturbed.  Should  they 
refuse  to  do  this  and  become  formidable  in  numbers,  unless 
wiser  counsels  and  a  better  spirit  prevail  than  did  in  1837,  as 
were  the  four  Synods  in  that  year,  they  will  doubtless  be 
legislated  out  of  the  Church. 

In  view  of  the  facts  placed  before  our  readers  in  reference 
to  a  miion  of  the  two  branches  of  the  Church,  they  can  be 
at  no  loss  which  is  most  desirous  of  it  on  Christian  princi- 
ples. They  must  also,  we  think,  be  forcibly  reminded  of  the 
striking  resemblance  of  the  exscinders  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury to  Diatrophes  of  the  first,  of  whom  the  beloved  disciple 
thus  wrote :  "  Who  loveth  to  have  the  pre-eminence,  prating 
against  us  with  malicious  words ;  and  not  content  therewith, 
neither  doth  he  himself  receive  the  brethren,  and  forbiddeth 
them  that  w^ould,  and  casteth  them  out  of  the  Church." 


OUR   POSITION,    DUTY,    AXD   PROSPECTS. 

The  preceding  chapters  contain  what  the  Committee  be- 
lieve to  be  a  faithful  documentary  history  of  the  division  of 
the  Presbyterian  Cliurch,  and  the  causes  which  produced  it. 
By  their  appointment  the  Synod  probably  contemplated 
nothing  more.  To  the  Committee  the  history  appears  highly 
suggestive,  presenting  matters  worthy  of  grave  consideration, 
especially  by  our  branch  of  the  Church,  and  it  has  seemed  to 
them  they  might,  Avith  propriety,  and  with  the  prospect  of 
doing  good,  close  their  labors  by  calling  attention  to  them. 

One  thing  which  will  be  likely  to  suggest  itself  to  every 
attentive  reader  of  the  preceding  pages,  is,  that  our  position, 
whether  desirable  or  otherwise,  is  not  of  our  own  election. 
As  long  as  there  was  any  hope  of  preventing  the  division  of 
the  Church,  the  men  who  now  compose  our  branch  of  it  la- 
bored to  avert  the  catastrophe,  and  since  it  was  effected,  they 
have  sought  to  unite  the  two  bodies  in  one.  By  our  brethren 
of  the  other  branch  these  efforts  to  effect  their  union  have 
been  counteracted.  To  this  day  they  manifest  an  iron  deter- 
mination to  have  no  union  but  upon  the  basis  which  they 
created  in  1837  and  1838.  To  this  we  cannot  consent  with- 
out the  sacrifice  of  principle  and  a  criminal  dereliction  of 
duty.  Culpable  as  we  believe  our  brethren  from  whom  we 
are  now  ecclesiastically  separated,  to  have  been,  in  placing 
us  in  our  present  position,  we  are  nevertheless  under  obliga- 
tion to  recognize  a  higher  agency  in  the  measures  which 


OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS.  215 

placed  us  in  it.  A  sparrow  falls  not  to  the  ground  wiiLout 
the  agency,  direct  or  permissive,  of  our  Heavenly  Father. 
Surely,  then,  events  intimately  connected  with  the  weal  or 
woe  of  any  branch  of  His  Church,  cannot.  All  things  consid- 
ered, it  seemed  good  to  Him  to  suffer  the  events  to  come  to 
pass  which  have  placed  us  in  the  position  we  occupy.  By  it 
He  has  purposes  to  answer,  which  are  worthy  of  His  infinite 
wisdom  and  benevolence.  He  has  a  mission  for  us  to  per- 
form, and  it  is  our  duty  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  means  which 
He  has  furnished  for  ascertaining  what  it  is,  and  hoio  Ave  may 
best  perform  it. 

In  respect  to  doctrine,  our  position  is  between  the  latitu- 
dinarianism,  which  tolerates  error,  subversive  of  the  Gospel 
on  one  hand,  and  uniformity,  which  precludes  all  diversity 
of  views  on  points  not  essential,  on  the  other.  With  the 
great  body  of  the  fathers  of  Presbyterianism  in  this  country, 
we  maintain  that  no  one  can  honestly  subscribe  or  give  his 
assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechism,  framed 
and  adopted  by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  who  does  not 
cordially  receive  them  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  distinguished  from  sys- 
tems embraced  by  several  other  branches  of  the  Protestant' 
Church,  it  is  Calvinistic,  and  we  believe  Scriptural.  With 
the  early  Presbyterians  of  our  country,  however,  we  believe, 
amidst  the  great  diversity  which  exists  among  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  Saviour  in  respect  to  mental  constitution, 
education  and  habits  of  thought,  that  with  the  present 
degree  of  their  sanciification,  perfect  uniformity  in  ref- 
erence to  a  system  so  comprehensive  and  minute  in  its 
details,  is  not  to  be  expected,  and  ought  not  to  be  required. 
Hence  it  seems  to  us  that  diversity  of  views  on  points  ^ 
not  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  system,  should  "be  made  \ 
the  subject  of  Christian  toleration.  It  must  be  so,  or  what 
is  worse,  there  will  be  visible  unity  without  union — insin- 
cerity, or  almost  endless  strife  and  divisions.  The  coercive 
measures  which  from  time  to  time  have  been  adopted  to 


216  OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS. 

secure  perfect  uniformity  of  doctrinal  belief,  churcli  polity, 
and  modes  of  worship,  have  not  only  failed,  but  done  in- 
calculable injury  to  the  cause  of  religion.  Our  position  in 
respect  to  doctrine,  is  that  of  agreement  in  things  funda- 
mental, and  toleration  and  forbearance  in  things  not  essen- 
tial, *'  endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds 
of  peace." 

Our  position  in  respect  to  disciphne  and  measures  for  the 
removal  of  error,  is  what  the  name  by  which  we  choose  to 
be  known,  Constitutional  Presbyterians,  indicates.  Unless  a 
Church  have  become  so  corrupt  that  the  discipline  of  the 
Gospel  cannot  be  carried  out,  and  revolution  is  the  only  thing 
which  gives  promise  of  relief,  the  recovery  of  erring  mem- 
bers and  the  expurgation  of  error  are  to  be  sought  only  by 
the  process  prescribed  in  our  Book  of  Discipline  and  the  word 
of  God.  This  is  one  of  the  things  for  which  we  contended 
at  the  time  the  exscinding  acts  were  passed,  and  for  which 
we  had  contended  for  several  years  previous.  Had  our 
brethren  adopted  this  course  with  the  four  disowned  Synods, 
had  they  patiently  investigated  the  rumors  respecting  the 
heresies  and  disorders  alleged  to  exist  in  them,  and  in  case 
they  should,  in  any  portions  of  them,  be  found  actually  to 
exist,  employed  for  their  removal  the  means  prescribed  in  the 
Gospel,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country  would  have 
remained  a  united  and  powerful  Branch  of  the  great  Protes- 
tant family  of  believers.  So  far  as  discipline  is  concerned, 
our  position  is  that  of  Constitutional  law  and  order.  It  is 
opposed  to  all  arbitrary,  rash,  and  revolutionary  measures  for 
securing  the  ends  of  discipline  and  promoting  the  purity  of 
the  Church.  We  utterly  repudiate  and  reprobate  in  the  Pro- 
testant, as  in  the  Romish  Church,  the  Jesuitical  maxim  in 
morals,  *'  The  end  sanctifies  the  meansT  We  maintain  that 
we  are  under  the  most  sacred  obligation  to  observe  the  rules 
which  God  has  given  for  the  maintenance  of  discipline  and 
the  removal  of  error. 

Our  position  in  reference  to  other  branches  of  the  Church, 


OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS.  217 

is  that  of  preference  for  our  own,  without  the  narrowness  of 
bigotry  and  sectarian  exckisiveness.  The  type  of  Presbyte- 
rianism,  which  characterizes  our  body,  is  that  of  the  founders 
of  Presbyterianism  in  this  country.  Our  preference  and 
love  for  its  formulas,  polity  and  order  are  strong,  while  we 
desire  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  all  evangelical 
Christians  of  every  name,  and  co-operate  with  them  in  labors 
for  the  spread  of  our  common  Christianity. 

As  regards  the  most  eligible  organizations  for  evangehzing 
our  nation  and  the  world,  our  preferences  are  generally  in  favor 
of  that  type  of  evangelism  which  seeks  the  attainment  of  its 
object  by  Voluntary  Societies,  composed  of  members  of  vari- 
ous denominations  of  Christians. 

Our  position  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  great  principles  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty.  We  maintain  that  men  of  all  na- 
tions, countries,  complexions  and  circumstances,  unless,  by 
wrong-doing,  they  ha^^  forfeited  their  prerogatives  as  men, 
have  a  perfect  right  to  think  for  themselves,  to  express  their 
opinions  freely,  except  when  they  are  adverse  to  the  interests 
of  society,  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  own  labor  and  the 
blessings  of  domestic  life ;  to  cultivate  their  minds,  read  the 
word  of  God,  and  worship  Him  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  consciencies,  enlightened  by  His  Word  and  Spirit. 

Our  position,  how'ever,  in  respect  to  the  involuntary  bond- 
age of  men,  is  conservative.  Firmly  fixed  as  are  our  prin- 
ciples against  the  system  cf  slavery  as  it  exists  in  our  coun- 
try; deep  as  is  our  abhorrence  of  the  legal  conversion  of 
men  into  mere  chattels,  and  the  fearful  liability  connected  with 
it,  of  sundering  the  bonds  which  unite  husbands  and  wives, 
parents  and  children,  brothers  and  sisters,  we  are  no  less  op- 
posed to  the  indiscriminate  denunciation  of  all  who  are  con- 
nected with  this  iniquitous  system.  We  believe  there  is  a 
more  excellent  way,  a  way  more  benevolent,  both  toward  the 
master  and  the  slave,  to  labor  for  its  extermination.  For  the  re- 
moval of  this  foul  blot  upon  our  national  escutcheon  and  com- 
mon humanity,  we  advocate  no  violent  measures,  but  a  calm. 


218  OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS. 

kind,  and  uncompromising  testimony  against  it,  and  efforts  to 
secure  an  everlasting  divorce  of  our  Branch  of  the  Church 
from  all  connection  with  the  institution.  In  several  of  our 
Assemblies,  this  subject  has  been  calmly  and  fully  discussed. 
They  have  re-affirmed  what  the  Synod  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  did  respecting  it  in  1181,  and  the  testimony  of 
the  Assembly  of  1818.  The  action  of  both  these  bodies 
against  slavery  is  temperate,  but  strongly  condemnatory,  as 
anti-Christian,  and  opposed  alike  to  the  principles  of  justice 
and  humanity.  Equally  opposed  are  we  to  all  infringements 
of  the  sacred  rights  of  religious  liberty.  Such,  in  the  various 
particulars  specified,  is  our  position  before  the  nation  and  the 
world. 

Here  the  inquiry  naturally  presents  itself,  what,  in  the  in- 
teresting position  which  we  occupy,  is  our 

DUTY  ? 

It  requires  no  supernatural  vision  to  see  that  a  body  of 
professing  Christians,  large  and  intelHgent  as  is  ours,  occu- 
pying the  position  which  the  providence  of  God  has  as- 
signed to  us,  must  be  laid  under  weighty  responsibilities,  and 
that  it  deeply  concerns  us  to  know  and  meet  them. 

An  important  branch  of  our  duty  respects  ourselves.  By 
the  course  pursued  by  our  brethren  of  the  New  Basisj  we 
have  been  deeply  grieved  and  injured.  That  the  ^jrinciples, 
which  in  the  main,  have  governed  us  in  resisting  their  revo- 
lutionary and  oppressive  measures,  are  characterized  by 
eternal  truth  and  righteousness,  we  do  not  doubt.  That  in 
the  peculiarly  trying  circumstances  in  which  we  have  been 
placed  by  the  action  of  our  exscinding  and  falsely  accusing 
brethren,  we  have  never  indulged  feelings  and  performed 
acts  displeasing  to  God,  we  would  by  no  means  affirm. 
Hence,  it  is  our  duty  to  exercise  the  most  diligent  self-scru- 
tiny for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  wherein  we  have  sinned, 
to  humble  ourselves  before  God,  and  seek  his  pardoning 
mercy. 

To  our  brethren,  by  whom  we  feel  that   we  have  been 


OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AIN^D    PROSPECTS.  219 

deeply  injured,  we  owe  an  important  duty.  They  have  east 
brethren  in  good  standing  out  of  the  Church,  untried ;  com- 
pelled those  of  our  body,  who  were  not  exscinded,  to  stand 
by  them  and  attempt  to  redress  their  wrongs  or  sacrifice 
their  principles.  They  have  laid  things  to  our  charge  re- 
specting our  doctrinal  belief,  our  practice,  and  the  adoption 
of  our  standards,  of  which  we  know  ourselves  to  be  guiltless 
as  the  angels  before  the  throne  of  God.  The  errors,  which 
they  have  from  time  to  time  laid  to  our  charge,  we  as  sincerely 
reject  as  they  do,  and  are  grieved  that  our  testimony  against 
them,  and  in  favor  of  the  system  contained  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  which  both  tkei/  and  we  adopt,  is 
not  believed  by  them.  It  is  no  matter  of  surprise,  that  the 
leaders  of  the  misnamed  reform  do  not  believe  our  testimony, 
but  it  is  that  the  numerous,  excellent  brethren  in  that  branch 
of  the  Church,  who  have  confidence  in  our  orthodoxy  and 
integrity,  can  hear  us  slandered  as  we  have  been  for  years, 
and  still  are  by  men  in  their  connection,  and  forbear  to  lift 
up  their  voices  in  our  defence.  Still  they  are  our  brethren, 
redeemed  by  the  same  precious  blood  to  which  we  trust  for 
remission  and  eternal  life.  As  such  we  are  bound  to  bear 
with  and  love  them,  their  faults  notwithstanding,  and  pray 
no  less  sincerely  than  we  do  for  ourselves,  that  God  would 
make  known  to  them  their  duty,  give  them  grace  to  perform 
it,  and  cause  the  light  of  His  countenance  to  shine  upon 
them. 

What  we  have  suffered  from  the  revolutionary  and  intoler- 
ant measures  of  the  New  Basis  Assembly,  should  lead  to  the 
exercise  of  forbearance  and  toleration  toward  each  other  in 
regard  to  things  of  subordinate  moment,  concerning  which 
we  differ.  An  intolerant,  overbearing  spirit  in  our  branch  of 
the  Church,  woul^  be  most  unseemly,  and  deeply  cul- 
pable. In  our  position,  we  ought  to  give  the  most  earnest 
heed  to  the  inspired  entreaty  and  injunction  :  **  That  ye  walk 
worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  ye  are  called,  with  all  low- 
liness and  meekness,  with  long-suffering,  forgiving  one  an- 


220  OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS. 

other  in  love ;  endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace." 

Our  position  before  all  the  branches  of  the  great  Protest- 
ant brotherhood  of  believers,  and  before  the  world,  as  the 
sincere  friends  of  our  standards  of  doctrine  and  order,  should 
influence  us  to  a  strict  adherence  to  them  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  the  adopting  act  of  1729.  If  there  be  men 
in  our  branch  of  the  church  who  repudiate  their  doctrines, 
and  are  guilty  of  flagrant  departures  from  their  discipline  and 
order,  let  the  measures,  prescribed  by  the  Gospel,  be  em- 
ployed to  reclaim  them.  Should  they  prove  unavailing,  let 
them  be  removed  from  us  by  judicial  process.  May  the  day 
never  come  when  any  shall  be  declared  out  of  our  commun- 
ion by  the  operation  of  ex-post-facto  laws  and  legislative  acts, 
wholly  unauthorized  by  our  Constitution  and  the  Word  of 
God. 

As  a  distinct  brancli  of  the  great  family  of  believers  in 
Christ,  we  have  certainly  a  rigid,  nay,  it  is  our  imjjerative 
duty,  to  employ  all  available  means  authorized  by  the  Gos- 
pel for  her  enlargement  and  prosperity.  Not  less  sacredly 
are  we  bound  to  abstain  from  infringing  the  rights  of  other 
branches  of  "the  household  of  faith,"  and  the  httleness  and 
guilt  of  a  bigoted  and  sectarian  policy  and  spirit.  Should 
we  unhappily  be  called  to  resist  these  evils  in  our  brethren  of 
other  denominations,  let  us  oppose  them  by  the  firmness  of 
Christian  principle,  the  meekness  of  heavenly  wisdom,  and 
the  spirit  of  Christian  forbearance  and  love.  Our  position  is 
too  high  and  sacred  to  allow  us  to  descend  to  the  low  ground 
of  sectarian  prejudice  and  policy.  Our  principles  forbid  us 
to  employ  the  low  arts  of  proselytism  to  augment  our  num- 
bers, or  interfere  with  the  evangelical  labors  of  Christians  of 
other  denominations  who  difi^er  from  us  only  in  matters  of 
subordinate  importance.  Still,  we  are** Roman  citizens,  or 
rather  the  Lord's  freemen,  and  may,  and  ought  to  defend  our 
rights  with  the  weapons  of  truth  and  love.  It  is  our  indis- 
pensable duty  to  seek  the  purity,  peace,  and  enlargement  of 


OUR    f»OSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS.  22  L 

that  brancli  of  the  church  with  which  we  are  connected,  be- 
cause we  beheve  it  to  be  most  conformable  to  the  Gospel 
pattern.  The  field  of  labor  for  the  world's  recovery  to  God 
is  broad  enough  for  all  the  disciples  of  Christ,  without  inter- 
fering with  each  other.  While  we  honest!}'  and  sincerely 
labor  to  propagate  Constitutional  Presbyterianism,  let  us  re- 
joice in  the  success  of  all  who  labor  to  make  converts  to 
Christ  by  the  Gospel. 

Our  principles  lay  us  under  obligation  to  do  all  in  our 
power  to  give  increased  efficiency  to  Voluntary  Societies  for 
the  spread  of  the  Gospel  and  the  conversion  of  the  world. 
The  unreasonable  opposition  to  them  on  the  part  of  our  breth- 
ren, and  their  iron  determination  to  exclude  their  operation 
from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  bind  all  her  members  to 
contribute  to  Boards  under  Ecclesiastical  control,  was  one  of 
the  chief  causes  of  placing  us  in  our  present  position.  We 
had  no  desire  to  interfere  with  their  preferences,  and  all  we 
asked  or  desired  from  them,  was  like  toleration.  This  they 
denied  us,  and  insisted  that  in  this  particular  we  should  sub- 
mit to  their  dictation  or  be  separated  from  them.  If  there 
be  any  in  our  body  who  adopt  their  views  of  Ecclesiastical 
Boards,  it  certainly  becomes  them  to  pay  a  respectful  defer- 
ence to  the  opinions  of  those  who  differ  from  them,  and  es- 
pecially of  their  fatliers  and  brethren  who  have  manfully  and 
with  great  self-denial  contended  for  the  voluntary  principle 
in  labors  for  spreading  the  Gospel  at  home  and  in  foreign 
lands.  Especially  should  we  hold  fast  and  defend  that  fea- 
ture of  the  voluntary  principle  which  unites  the  labors,  con- 
tributions, and  prayers  of  Christians  of  different  names  for 
the  spread  of  their  common  faith,  and  promoting  the  glory 
of  their  common  Father,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier. 

To  all  who  are  suffering  from  civil  or  ecclesiastical  despo- 
tism, we  owe  an  important  duty.  What  we  are  bound  to 
do  for  their  relief,  it  may  not  in  all  cases  be  easy  to  decide ; 
but  that  we  are  under  obligation  to  sympathize  with  them, 
and  do  for  them  what  we  might  reasonably  desire  them  to 
10 


222  OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS. 


do  for  us  in  like  circumstances,  is  manifest  as  the  light.  As 
the  avowed  friends  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  we  are  bound 
to  employ  all  lawful  means  for  the  defence  of  the  rights  of 
the  oppressed  both  in  Church  and  State.  To  this  principle 
we  stand  committed  before  our  country  and  the  world,  by 
the  action  of  several  of  our  Assemblies.  The  field  before 
us,  inviting  this  labor  of  love,  is  vast,  for  the  number  of  those, 
both  in  Church  and  State,  who  are  suffering  under  the  bur- 
dens and  wrongs  of  involuntary  bondage,  is  immense.  It 
should  be  our  aim  to  have  our  branch  of  the  Church  de- 
tached from  all  connection  with  the  system  of  slaver}^ — 
nay,  to  do  our  utmost  to  banish  this  Hydra  evil  from  our 
country  and  the  world,  and  introduce  all  the  victims  of  eri'or 
and  superstition  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  Gospel ; — 
liberty  to  read  and  interpret  the  word  of  God  for  themselves, 
and  worship  Him,  unembarrassed  by  the  traditions  and  com- 
mandments of  men. 

OUR   PROSPECTS 

are  bright  with  encouragement  and  hope,  demanding  our 
united  and  fervent  thanksgiving  to  God.  How  changed  are 
they  since  the  excision  of  1837  and  the  organization  of  our 
Assembly  in  1838!  The  year  between  those  Assembhes 
was  a  period  of  deep  anxiety  and  painful  apprehension. 
Our  brethren,  who  had  lent  their  agency  to  procure  the  ex- 
cision of  the  four  Synods  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Third 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  or  were  pledged  to  support 
them,  were  strong  in  the  belief  that  those  Synods,  and  all 
who  were  resolved  to  make  common  cause  with  them,  could 
never  form  a  homogeneous,  harmonious  body.  The  ruling 
spirit  of  the  Assembly  of  1837,  when  urging  the  passage  of 
the  exscinding  resolutions,  said,  "  Moderator,  pass  them,  and 
you  will  scatter  these  New  School  men  to  the  winds,  and 
never  hear  of  them  again."  After  they  had  been  passed,  mul- 
titudes believed  that  this  assertion  wovdd  be  verified.  They 
were  confident  that  many  who  were  deeply  grieved  by  their 


OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS.  223 

passage,  would  nevertheless  sit  down  under  tliem  without 
complaint,  and  that  a  still  greater  number  would  seek  a  union 
with  Congregationalists.  The  firm  friends  of  Constitutional 
Presb3^terianism  could  not  tell  what  would  be  the  effect  of 
so  violent  a  blow  for  the  deprivation  of  rights,  secured  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  church,  as  that  which,  contrary  to 
every  principle  of  natural  justice,  thrust  out  of  it  five  hun- 
dred of  her  Ministers  and  sixty  thousand  of  her  Communi- 
cants, without  trial  or  citation.  It  was  calculated  to  pro- 
duce strong  prejudices  against  a  system,  under  which  a  deed 
of  such  revolting  iniquity  had  been  perpetrated. 

Thanks  be  to  God,  the  dark  and  ominous  clouds  which  for 
years  brooded  over  us,  have  dispersed,  and  left  our  sky 
serene  and  bright.  If  we  do  not  misjudge,  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  sheds  no  brighter  beams  of  gladness  and  hope 
upon  any  portion  of  the  Lord's  heritage.  Our  position  be- 
fore the  world  commends  itself  to  the  approval  of  intelli- 
gent and  candid  observers  of  all  creeds  and  all  ecclesiastical 
organizations.  Our  action  respecting  slavery  renders  our 
prospects  most  cheering  when  compared  with  those  of  other 
denominations,  which  have  shut  out  from  their  deliberative 
bodies  all  discussion  respecting  it.  They  will  be  compelled 
to  admit  it.  The  spiiit  of  the  age  and  the  providence  of 
God  will,  ere  \oxig-r  force  it  upon  them,  but  what  may  be  its 
results  in  respect  to  their  peace  and  prosperity,  remains  to 
be  known.  Our  branch  of  the  church  has  discussed  it  in 
all  its  bearings,  calmly  and  fully,  and  our  principles  and 
policy  respecting  it  are  understood,  and  generally  approved. 
With  uncompromising  hostility  to  the  system,  we  unite  a 
conservative,  benevolent  policy  in  respect  to  measures  for  its 
removal. 

With  a  creed  strictly  Calvinistic,  we  associate  views  res- 
pecting the  extent  of  the  atonement,  the  basis  of  human  obli- 
gation, and  the  nature  of  the  sinner's  inability  to  do  the  will 
of  God,  which  furnish  advantages  for  defending  the  system 
and  justifying  "  the  ways  of  God  to  men,"  which  those  who 


224  OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS. 

V  diflfer  from  us  on  these  points  have  not.     They  cannot,  as  we 

I  can,  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  God  in  the  indiscriminate  offer 

t/   of  salvation  to  all,  and  press,  as  we  can,  the  obligations  of 

1  the  impenitent  to  yield  immediate  obedience   to  the  Gospel. 

On  these   topics,  our  theology  is   that  of  common   sense, 

sound  philosophy,  and  the  obvious  teaching  of  inspiration. 

Our  principles,  too,  instead  of  forbidding,  require  us  to  co- 
operate with  all  who  give  evidence  of  discipleship  to  the 
Lord  Jesus,  in  efforts  to  spread  the  Gospel.  For  this  benevo- 
lent, God-like  purpose,  we  can  labor,  unencumbered  with  the 
iron  coat  of  mail  with  which  sectarian  exclusiveness  girds  its 
disciples.  Many  of  the  obstacles  to  our  progress  by  which 
we  have  been  embarrassed  most  of  the  time  since  our  organi- 
zation in  1838,  are  now  removed.  During  a  large  portion  of 
this  period,  much  of  our  time  and  energies  were  necessarily 
devoted  to  the  defence  of  our  position  and  rights.  Now 
we  can  consecrate  them  to  labors  for  extending  the  borders 
of  our  heritage  and  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  through  the 
world.  We  are  not,  indeed,  rich  in  moneyed  investments. 
All  that  the  church  possessed  previous  to  the  division,  our 
brethren  of  the  New  Basis  have  appropriated  to  themselves. 
We  are  confident,  however,  that  God,  whose  is  "  the  silver  and 
the  gold, — the  earth — and  the  fulness  thereof,  "approves  our 
principles  and  policy,  and  if  we  humbly  confide  in  Him,  will 
not  withhold  His  blessing  from  us.  Though  not  the  largest, 
we  are  not  the  least  of  "  the  tribes  of  Israel."  We  have  valuable 
seminaries,  endowed  and  in  the  process  of  endowment,  for 
giving  a  thorough  education  to  our  candidates  for  the  ministry. 
With  our  more  than  fourteen  hundred  Ministers,  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  Churches,  and  more  than  one  hundred  and 
forty  thousand  Communicants,  embracing  a  large  amount 
of  talent,  learning,  wealth  and  influence,  if  associated,  as  we 
pray  it  may  be,  with  a  spirit  of  activity  and  humble  depend- 
ence upon  God,  what,  by  His  blessing,  may  we  not  achieve 
for  the  dissemination  of  His  truth,  the  promotion  of  His 
honor,  and   the    salvation   of   our   sin- destroyed,    suffering 


OUR    POSITION,    DUTY,    AND    PROSPECTS.  225 

world  !  All  that  is  necessary  to  warrant  the  most  enlarged 
expectations  of  success  in  every  department  of  Christian 
labor,  is,  that  om*  churches  and  ministry  receive  a  fresh  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Let  us  seek  this  priceless  blessing, 
by  humble,  believing,  persevering  prayer.  With  these  ani- 
mating prospects  before  us,  let  us  arise  in  the  strength  of 
our  redeeming  God,  and  lay  all  our  powers  under  contribu- 
tion for  the  advancement  of  His  kingdom  and  honor  ; — al- 
ways abounding  in  His  work,  assured  that  our  labor  will  not 
be  in  vain. 


|ipniiji^\ 


[A.] 

JUDGE  ROGERS'  CHARGE. 

In  the  course  of  my  remarks,  gentlemen,  so  far  as  lies  in  my  power, 
I  shall  instruct  you  positively,  clearly,  and  directly,  upon  the  differ- 
ent points  of  law  involved  in  this  case.  My  observations  will  be  brief, 
and  discarding  all  collateral  matter,  I  shall  direct  your  attention  to  the 
very  points  which  I  think  material.  If  I  err  in  my  instructions  to 
you,  by  a  resort  to  a  higher  tribunal,  the  error  may  be  corrected.  I 
now  request  your  careful  attention. 

Before  the  year  1758,  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  this  country, 
were  under  the  care  of  two  separate  Synods,  and  their  respective  Pi-es- 
byteries :  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia. 

In  the  year  1*758,  these  Synods  were  united,  and  were  called  the 
*'  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia."  This  continued  until  the 
year  1788,  when  the  General  Assembly  was  formed.  The  Synod  was 
then  divided  into  four  Synods,  the  Synods  of  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  Philadelphia,  Virginia,  and  the  Carolinas ;  of  these  four  Syn- 
ods the  General  Assembly  was  constituted. 

In  1803  the  Synod  of  Albany  was  erected.  This  Synod  has  been 
from  time  to  time  sub-divided,  and  the  Synods  of  Genesee,  Geneva, 
and  Utica  have  been  formed. 

The  Synod  of  Pittsburg  has  been  also  erected,  out  of  which  the  Syn- 
od of  the  AVestern  Reserve  has  been  formed. 

These  constitute  the  four  exscinded  Synods,  viz.,  the  Synods  of  Gene- 
see, Geneva,  Utica,  and  the  Western  Reserve. 

The  General  Assembly  was  constituted  by  every  Presbytery  at 
their  last  stated  meeting,  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, deputing  to  the  General  Assembly  commissioners  in  certain 
epecific  proportions. 


APPENDIX.  227 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  part  of  the  constitution  of 
the  Church.  The  constitution  could  not  be  altered,  unless  two-thirds 
of  the  Presbyteries  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly,  prepared 
alterations  or  amendments,  and  such  alterations  or  amendments  were 
agreed  to  by  the  General  Assembly. 

The  Form  of  Government  was  amended  in  1821.  The  General  As 
eembly  now  consists  of  an  "equal  delegation  of  bishops  and  elders 
from  each  Presbytery  in  certain  proportions." 

The  judicatories  of  the  Church  consist  of  the  Session,  of  the  Pres- 
byteries, of  Synods,  and  the  General  Assembly. 

The  church-session  consists  of  the  pastor,  or  pastors,  and  ruling  el- 
ders of  a  particular  congregation.  A  Presbytery,  of  all  the  ministers- 
and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  congregation  within  a  certain  district. 
A  Synod  is  a  convention  of  bishops  and  elders,  including  at  least  three 
Presbyteries.  And  the  General  Assembly,  of  an  equal  delegation  of 
bishops  and  elders,  from  each  Presbytery,  in  the  following  propor- 
tion, viz,  each  Presbytery  consisting  of  not  more  than  twenty-four 
ministers,  sends  one  minister  and  one  elder ;  and  each  Presbytery  con- 
sisting of  more  than  twenty-four  ministers,  sends  two  ministers  and  two 
eldei's ;  and  in  the  like  proportion  for  every  twenty-four  ministers  in 
any  Presbytery.  The  delegates  so  appointed  are  styled  commission- 
ers to  the  General  Assembly. 

The  General  Assembly  is  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  represents,  in  one  body,  all  the  particular  churches  of 
this  denomination  of  Christians. 

In  relation  to  this  body,  the  most  important  undoubtedly  are  the 
various  Presbyteries  ^  for,  as  was  before  said,  the  General  Assembly 
consists  of  an  equal  delegation  of  bishops  and  elders  from  each  of  the 
Presbyteries.  If  the  Presbyteries  are  destroyed,  the  General  Assem- 
bly fiills,  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  there  would  no  longer  be  any  con- 
stituent bodies  in  existence,  from  which  delegates  could  be  sent  to  the 
General  Assembly. 

The  Presbyteries  are  essential  features  in  the  form  of  government 
in  another  particular,  for  before  any  overtures  or  regulations  proposed 
by  the  General  Assembly,  to  be  established  as  constitutional  rules,  can 
be  obligatory  on  the  churches,  it  is  necessary  to  transmit  them  to  all 
the  Presbyteries,  and  to  receive  the  returns  of  at  least  a  majority  of 
them  in  writing,  approving  thereof. 

A  Synod,  as  has  been  before  observed,  is  a  convention  of  bishops 
and  elders  within  a  district,  including  at  least  three  Presbyteries. 
The  Synods  have  a  supervisory  power  over  Presbyteries,  but  unlike 
Presbyteries,  as  such  they  are  not  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Gen- 


228  APPENDIX. 

eral  Assembly.  If  every  Synod  in  the  United  States  were  exscinded 
and  destroyed,  still  the  General  Assembly  would  remain  as  the  high- 
est tribunal  in  the  Church.  In  this  particular  there  is  a  vital  differ- 
ence between  Presbyteries  and  Synods.  The  only  connexion  between 
the  General  Assembly  and  the  Synods  is,  that  the  former  has  a  super- 
visory power  over  the  latter. 

Having  thus  given  you  an  account  of  such  parts  of  the  Form  of 
Church  government  as  may,  in  some  aspects  of  the  cause,  be  material, 
I  shall  now  call  your  attention  to  the  matter  in  issue. 

This  proceeding  is  what  is  called  a  "  Quo  Warranto"  It  is  issued 
by  the  Commonwealth,  at  the  suggestion  of  James  Todd  and  others, 
against  Ashbel  Green  and  others,  to  show  by  what  authority  they 
claim  to  exercise  the  office  of  Trustees  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  I  must  here 
remark,  that  it  is  not  only  an  a23propriate,  but  the  best  method  of  try- 
ing the  issue  in  this  cause. 

It  is  admitted,  that  until  the  24th  of  May,  1838,  the  respondents 
were  the  rightful  trustees;  but  it  is  contended  by  the  relators,  that 
on  that  day,  the  24th  of  May,  1838,  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  incor- 
poration, the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  changed 
one  third  of  the  trustees,  by  the  election  of  the  relators  in  the  place 
and  stead  of  the  respondents. 

On  the  28th  of  March,  1799,  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  declared 
Ashbel  Green  and  seventeen  others,  (naming  them),  a  body  politic, 
and  corporate,  by  the  name  and  style  of  Trustees  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  sixth  section  provides  that  the  corporation  shall  not,  at  any 
time,  consist  of  more  than  eighteen  persons;  whereof,  the  General 
Assembly  may,  at  their  discretion,  as  often  as  they  shall  hold  their  ses- 
sions in  the  State  of  'Pennsylvania,  change  one  third  in  such  manner 
as  to  the  General  Assembly  may  seem  proper. 

It  was  the  intention  of  the  Legislature,  by  the  act  of  incorporation, 
to  provide  for  the  election  of  competent  persons,  who,  as  an  incorpo- 
rated body,  might  with  more  ease,  and  in  a  better  manner,  manage 
the  temporal  affairs  of  the  Church.  It  is  only  in  this  aspect  that  we 
have  cognizance  of  the  case. 

In  this  country,  for  the  mutual  advantage  of  church  and  state,  we 
have  wisely  separated  the  ecclesiastical  from  the  civil  power.  The 
court  has  as  little  inclination  as  authority  to  interfere  with  the  church 
and  its  government,  farther  than  may  be  necessary  for  its  protection 
and  security.  It  is  only  as  it  bears  upon  the  corporation,  which  is 
the  creature  of  the  civil  power,  that  we  have  any  right  to  determine 


APPENDIX.  229 

the  validity,  or  to  construe  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  the  General 
Assembly.  It  is,  however,  sufficient  for  us,  gentlemen,  to  know  that 
in  this  case  we  have  that  right. 

Although  neither  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  such, 
nor  the  General  Assembly  itself,  are  individually  or  aggregately  mem- 
bers of  the  corporation,  yet  the  Assembly  has  power,  from  time  to 
time,  as  they  may  deem  proper,  to  change  the  trustees,  and  to  give 
special  instructions  for  their  government.  They  stand  in  the  relation 
of  electors,  and  have  been  properly  denominated  in  the  argument, 
quasi  corporate.  The  trustees  only  are  the  corporation  by  express 
words  of  the  act  of  the  Assembly. 

Unhappily,  differences  have  arisen  in  the  church,  (the  nature  of 
which  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  inquire  into,)  which  have  caused  a 
division  of  its  members  into  two  parties,  called  and  known  as  the  Old 
and  New  School.  These  appellations  we  may  adopt  for  the  sake  of 
designating  the  respective  parties,  the  existence  of  which  will  have 
an  important  bearing  on  some  of  the  questions  involved  in  this  im- 
portant cau^e.  It  gives  a  key  to  conduct  which  it  would  be  other- 
wise difficult  to  explain. 

The  division  continued  to  increase  in  strength  and  virulence  until 
the  session  of  1837,  when  certain  decisive  measiires,  which  will  be 
hereafter  stated,  were  taken  by  the  General  Assembly,  which  at  this 
time  was  under  the  control  of  members,  who  sympathize,  (as  the 
phrase  is,)  with  the  principles  of  the  Old  School. 

At  an  early  period  the  Presbyterian  Church,  at  their  own  sugges- 
tion, formed  unions  with  cognate  churches,  that  is,  with  churches 
whose  faith,  principles  and  practice,  assimilated  with  their  own,  and 
between  whom  there-was  thought  to  be  no  essential  difference  in  doc- 
trine. 

On  this  principle  a  plan  of  union  and  correspondence  was  adopted 
by  the  Assembly  in  1*792,  with  the  General  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, with  Vermont  in  1803,  with  that  of  New  Hampshire  in  1810, 
with  Massachusetts  in  1811,  with  the  Northern  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Albany  in  1802,  and  with  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church,  in  J 798. 

These  conventions,  as  is  stated,  originated  in  measures  adopted  by 
the  General  Assembly  in  1790  and  1791.  The  delegates  from  each 
of  the  associated  churches  not  only  sat  and  deliberated  with  each 
other,  but  also  acted  and  voted  by  virtue  of  the  express  terms  of  the 
union. 

In  further  pursuance  of  the  settled  policy  of  the  Church  to  extend 
its  sphere  of  usefulness,  in  the  year  1801,  a  plan  of  union  between  the 
Presbyterians  and  Oongregationalists  was  formed. 

10* 


230  APPENDIX. 

The  plan  which  was  devised  by  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  to  pre- 
vent alienation  and  to  promote  harmony,  was  observed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  without  question  by  them,  until  the  year  1835,  a  pe- 
riod of  thirty-four  years. 

At  that  time  it  was  resolved  by  the  General  Assembly,  that  they 
deemed  it  no  longer  desirable  that  churches  should  be  formed  in 
their  Presbyterian  connexion,  agreeably  to  the  plan  adopted  by  the 
Assembly  and  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut  in  1801.  They, 
therefore,  resolved  that  their  brethren  of  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  respectfully  requested  to  consent 
that  the  said  plan  shall  be,  from  and  after  the  next  meeting  of  that 
Association,  declared  to  be  annulled.  And  also  resolved  that  the  an- 
nulling of  said  plan  shall  not  in  any  wise  interfere  with  the  existence 
and  lawful  association  of  churches  which  have  been  already  formed  on 
this  plan. 

To  this  resolution  no  reasonable  objection  can  be  made ;  and  if  the 
matter  had  been  permitted  to  rest  here,  we  should  not  have  been 
troubled  with  this  controversy.  It  had  not  then  occurred  to  the  As- 
sembly, that  the  plan  of  union  was  unconstitutional.  The  resolutions 
are  predicated  on  the  belief  that  the  agreement  or  compact  was  con 
stitutional.  They  request  that  the  Association  of  Connecticut  would 
consent  to  rescind  it.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  thought  that 
this  could  be  done  without  their  consent.  And,  moreover,  the  reso- 
lution expressly  saves  the  right  of  existing  churches  which  had  been 
formed  on  that  plan. 

I  must  be  permitted  to  regret,  for  the  sate  of  peace  and  harmony, 
that  this  business  was  not  suffered  to  rest  on  the  basis  of  resolutions 
which  breathe  the  spirit  of  peace  and  good  feeling.  But,  unfortu- 
nately, the  General  Assembly,  in  1837,  which  was  then  under  another 
influence,  took  a  different  view  of  the  question. 

"As  the  'Plan  of  Union'  adopted  for  the  new  settlements,  in  1801, 
was  originally  an  unconstitutional  act  on  the  part  of  that  Assembly — 
these  important  standing  rules  having  never  been  submitted  to  the 
Presbyteries — and  as  they  were  totally  destitute  of  authority  as  pro- 
ceeding from  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  which  is  invest- 
ed with  no  power  to  legislate  in  such  cases,  and  especially  to  enact 
laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within  her  limits  ;  and  as  much  confu- 
sion and  irregularity  have  arisen  from  this  unnatural  and  unconstitu- 
tional system  of  union,  therefore  it  is  resolved,  that  the  Act  of  the  As- 
sembly of  1801,  entitled  a  '  Plan  of  Union,'  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby 
abrogated."     See  Digest,  pp.  29V-299. 

The  resolution  declares  the  Plan  of  Uuiuu  to  be  unconstitutional. 


APPENDIX,  231 

First,  because  those  important  standing  rules,  as  they  call  them,  were 
not  submitted  to  Ihe  Presbyteries ;  and,  secondly,  because  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut  was  invested  with  no  power  to  legislate  in 
siich  cases,  and  especially  to  enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  with- 
in their  limits. 

The  Court  is  not  satisfied  with  the  force  of  these  reasons,  and  does 
not  think  the  agreement,  or  Plan  of  Union,  comes  within  the  words 
or  spirit  of  that  clause  in  the  constitution,  which  provides  that  before 
any  overture  or  regulations  shall  be  proposed  by  the  General  Assembly 
to  be  established  as  constitutional  rules,  shall  be  obligatory  on  the 
churches,  it  shall  be  necessary  to  transmit  them  to  all  the  Presbyteries, 
and  to  receive  the  returns  of  at  leasta  majorityof  them,  approving  there- 
of. Nor  is  it,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  conflict  with  the  con- 
stitution, before  its  amendment  in  1821,  which  provides  that  no  al- 
teration shall  be  made  in  the  Constitution,  unless  two-thirds  of  the 
Presbyteries  under  thj  care  of  the  General  Assembly  propose  altera- 
tions or  amendments,  and  such  alterations  or  amendments  are  ao-reed 
to  by  the  Assembly. 

It  was  a  regulation  made  by  competent  parties,  and  not  intended 
by  either  as  a  constitutional  rule  ;  nor  was  it  obligatory  on  any  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  within  their  connexion.  Those  who  were 
competent  to  make  it,  were  competent  to  dissolve  it  without  the  as- 
sent of  the  presbyteries,  as  such,  which  could  not  be  done,  were  it 
a  constitutional  rule,  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution.  Whether 
one  party  may  dissolve  it,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  it  might 
be  unnecessary  to  decide.  My  opinion  is  that  they  can.  The  Plan 
of  Union  is  intended  to  prevent  alienation, and  to  promote  union  and 
harmony  in  the  new  settlements. 

It  is  not  a  union  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  with  a  Congregational 
Church,  or  churches,  but  it  purports  to  be,  and  is,  a  Plan  of  Union 
between  individual  members  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches,  in  that  portion  of  the  country  which  was  then  denominated 
the  New  Settlements.  It  is  advisory  and  recommendatory  in  its  char- 
acter— has  nothing  obligatory  about  it.  A  Congregational  church,  aa 
such,  is  not  by  force  of  the  agreement  incorporated  with  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  It  has  no  necessary  connexion  with  it;  for  it  is  only 
when  the  congregation  consists  partly  of  tliose  who  hold  the  Congre- 
gational form  of  discipline,  and  partly  of  those  who  hold  the  Presby- 
terian form,  and  there  is  an  appeal  to  the  presbytery,  (as  there  may 
be  in  certain  cases,)  that  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Congrega- 
tional church,  consisting  partly  of  Presbyterians  and  partly  of 
Congregationalists,  may,  or  shall  attend  the  presbytery,  and  may  have 


232  APPENDIX. 

the  same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  presbytery  as  a  ruling  elder.  And 
whatever  may  have  been  occasionally  the  instances  to  the  contrary, 
this  I  conceive  to  be  the  obvious  construction  of  the  regulation.  That 
part  of  the  agreement  was  intended  as  a  safeguard,  or  protection  of 
the  rights  of  all  the  parties  to  be  affected  by  it,  without  any  design 
to  confer  upon  the  Standing  Committee  all  the  rights  of  a  ruling  elder. 

I  view  it  as  a  matter  of  discipline,  and  not  of  doctrine,  the  effect 
of  which  is  to  exempt  those  members  of  the  different  communions, 
who  adopted  it,  from  the  censures  of  the  church  to  which  they  belong, 
and  pai'ticularly  the  clerical  portion  of  them. 

The  Court  is  also  of  the  opinion,  that  after  an  acquiescence  of  nearly 
forty  years,  and  particularly  after  the  adoption  by  the  presbyteries 
of  the  amended  constitution  of  1821,  the  Plan  of  Union  is  not  now 
open  to  objection.  The  plan  has  been  recognized  by  the  presbyteries 
at  various  times,  and  in  different  manners,  under  the  old  and  amended 
constitution.  It  has  been  acted  on  by  them  and  the  General  Assembly 
in  repeated  instances,  and  is  equally  as  obligatory  as  if  it  had  received 
the  express  sanction  of  the  presbyteries  in  all  the  forms  known  to  the 
constitution. 

That  acquiescence  gives  right,  is  a  principle  which  we  must  admit. 
The  constitutionality  of  the  purchase  and  admission  of  Louisiana  as 
a  member  of  the  Union,  was  doubted  by  some  of  the  wisest  heads  and 
purest  hearts  in  the  country;  but  he  would  be  a  very  bold  man, 
indeed,  who  would  now  deny  that  state,  and  Mississippi,  Arkansas, 
and  Missouri,  to  be  members  of  the  confederation.  In  the  memorable 
struggle  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  this  objection 
was  never  taken. 

Nor  am  I  satisfied  with  the  second  reason,  that  the  General  Asso- 
ciation of  Connecticut  was  invested  with  no  power  to  legislate  in 
such  cases,  and  especially  to  enact  laws  to  regulate  churches  not  within 
their  limits.  Although  the  General  Assembly  had  the  right  to  annul 
the  Plan  of  Union  without  the  assent  of  the  General  Association  of 
Connecticut,  yet  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that  after  having  acted 
on  the  plan,  and  reaped  all  the  advantages  of  it,  it  is  rather  discour- 
teous, to  say  the  least  of  it,  to  attempt  to  abrogate  it  without  the 
consent  of  the  other  party.  Although  the  Association  may  be  an 
advisory  body,  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  any  difficulty  has  been 
started  by  them,  or  by  the  churches  under  their  control.  All  parties 
acquiesced  in  it  for  thirty-six  years,  axid  it  would  be  too  late  for  either 
now  to  object  to  its  validity.  Xor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  idea  that 
they  have  no  power  to  fegulate  churches  not  within  their  limits. 
This  is  a  matter  of  consent,  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  churches 


APPENDIX.  233 

in  one  state  from  submitting  themselves  to  the  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment of  churches  located  in  another  state.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
has  furnished  us  with  repeated  examples  of  this  kind. 

So  far  from  believing  the  Plan  of  Union  to  be  unconstitutional,  I 
concur  fully  with  one  of  the  counsel,  that,  confined  wiUiin  ite  legiti- 
mate limits,  it  is  an  agreement  or  regulation,  which  the  General 
Assembly  not  only  had  power  to  make,  but  that  it  is  one  which  is 
well  calculated  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  religion. 

If,  as  is  stated,  the  standing  committee  of  Congregational  churches 
have  claimed  and  exercised  the  same  rights  as  ruling  elders  in  pres- 
byteries, and  in  the  General  Assembly  itself,  it  is  an  abuse  which 
may  be  cori'ected  by  the  proper  tribunals;  but  surely  that  is  no 
argument,  or  one  of  but  little  weight,  to  show  that  the  Plan  of  Union 
is  unconstitutional  and  void. 

Although,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  the  Assembly  have  the  right 
to  repeal  the  Plan  of  Union  without  the  consent  of  the  General  As- 
sociation of  Connecticut,  yet  it  was  unjust  to  repeal  it,  without  saving 
the  rights  of  existing  ministers  and  churches.  But  this  is  a  matter, 
the  propriety  of  which  they  must  determine. 

But  whether  the  Plan  of  Union  be  constitutional  or  not,  is  only 
material  so  far  as  it  is  made  the  basis  of  some  subsequent  resolutions, 
to  which  your  attention  will  now  he  directed. 

At  the  same  session,  and  after  failure  of  an  attempt  at  compromise, 
the  character  of  which  has  been  the  subject  of  much  comment,  the 
General  Assembly  "  resolved,  that  by  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801,  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Keserve  is,  and  is  hereby 
declared  to  be,  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

^^  Resolved,  That  imionsequence  of  the  abrogation  by  this  General 
Assembly  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  between  it  and  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  as  utterly  unconstitutional,  and  therefore 
null  and  void  from  the  beginning,  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  and 
Genesee,  which  were  formed  and  attached  to  this  body,  under  and 
in  execution  of  said  Plan  of  Union,  be,  and  are  hereby  declared  to 
be,  out  of  the  connexion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  that  they  are  not,  in  form  or  in  fact,  an  integral 
portion  of  said  church." 

These  resolutions  refer  only  in  name  to  the  four  synods,  and  if  we 
were  called  on  for  the  construction  alone,  it  might  be  well  doubted 
whether  they  were  intended,  or  could  be  made  to  include,  the  pres- 
byteries within  their  limits,  the  constituents  or  electoral  bodies  of  the 
General  Assembly  itself.  I  should  be  inclined,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
tecting their  rights  from  a  resolution  so  penal  in  its  character,  to  say 


234  APPENDIX. 

that  they  ■svere  not  included,  either  in  the  spirit  or  words  of  the  reso- 
lution. But  this  construction  we  are  prevented  from  giving  by  their 
declarative  resolution.  It  is  there  in  effect  said,  that  it  is  the  purpose  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  destroy  the  relations  of  all  said  synods  and 
all  their  constituent  parts  to  the  General  Assembly  and  to  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States,  In  the  fourth  resolution  it  is  de- 
clared, that  any  presbytery  within  the  four  synods,  being  strictly  Pres- 
byterian in  doctrine  and  order,  who  may  desire  to  be  united  with  them, 
are  hereby  directed  to  make  application,  with  a  full  statement  of  their 
case,  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  which  will  take  proper  order 
thereon. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  character  of  these  resolutions.  It  is  an 
immediate  dissolution  of  all  connexion  between  the  four  synods  and 
all  their  constitu^ent  parts,  and  the  General  Assembly.  They  are 
destructive  of  the  rights  of  electors  of  the  General  Assembly.  The 
connexion  might  be  renewed,  it  is  true,  by  each  of  the  presbyteries 
making  application  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  but  they  are  at 
liberty  to  accept  or  refuse  them,  provided  they,  the  General  Assembly, 
deem  them  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order.  As  they  had 
the  right  to  admit  them,  they  had  the  right,  also,  to  refuse  them, 
unless,  in  their  opinion,  they  were  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine 
and  order. 

By  these  resolutions,  the  commissioners,  who  had  acted  with  the 
General  Assembly  up  to  that  time,  were  deprived  of  their  seats.  At 
the  same  time,  four  synods,  with  twenty-eight  presbyteries,  were  cut 
off  from  all  connexion  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  The  General 
Assembly  resolved,  that  because  the  Plan  of  1801  was  unconstitu- 
tional, those  synods  and  their  constituent  parts  are  no  longer  integral 
parts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

You  will  observe,  that  I  have  ah*eady  said  the  Plan  of  Union  is 
constitutional.  That  reason  therefore  fails.  They  have  resolved  that 
it  is  not  only  unconstitutional,  but  that  it  is  null  and  void  from  the 
beginning.  Instead  of  Si  prospective,  they  have  given  their  resolutions 
a  retrospective  effect,  the  injustice  of  which  is  most  manifest. 

But  admitting  that  the  Plan  of  Union  is  unconstitutional,  null  and 
void,  from  the  beginning,  I  cannot  perceive  what  justification  that 
furnishes  for  the  exscinding  resolutions.  The  infusion  of  Congrega- 
tional ists  with  the  presbyteries,  or  the  General  Assembly  itself,  does 
not  invalidate  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly.  They  had  a  right, 
notwithstanding  the  charter,  which  recognizes  elders  and  ministers  as 
composing  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  perform  the  functions  com- 
mitted to  them  by  the  constitution.      And  among  them  to  establish 


APPENDIX.  235 

and  divide  synods,  to  create  presbyteries,  as  in  their  judgment  the 
exigencies  of  the  church  might  demand. 

Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  four  synods,  and  all  the  presbyteries 
attached  to  them,  have  been  formed  since  the  year  1801.  The  As- 
sembly creates  the  synods,  and  the  synods  the  presbyteries.  Some- 
times the  Assembly  creates  the  presbyteries — a  course  pursued  with 
some  of  the  presbyteries  which  have  been  exscinded.  They  have  been 
established  since,  but  this  is  no  evidence  that  the  four  exscinded  synods 
were  formed  and  attached  to  the  General  Assembly  under,  and  in 
execution  of,  the  Plan  of  Union.  The  compact,  as  has  been  before 
observed,  was  intended  for  a  different  purpose,  and  imposed  on  the 
Presbyterian  Church  no  obligation  to  admit  churches  formed  on  the 
plan,  as  members.  It  was  a  voluntary  act,  and  not  the  necessary 
result  of  the  agreement ;  nor  does  it  appear  that  the  jsresbyteries 
were  formed  and  incorporated  with  the  church  on  any  other  terms  or 
conditions  than  other  presbyteries,  who  were  in  regular  course  taken 
into  the  Presbyterian  connexion. 

But,  gentlemen,  when  resolutions  of  so  unusual  a  character,  so  con- 
demnatory, and  so  destructive  of  the  rights  of  electors,  the  constitu- 
ents of  the  Assembly  itself,  are  passed,  we  have  a  right  to  require 
that  the  substantial  forms  of  justice  be  observed.  But  so  far  from 
this,  the  General  Assembly,  in  the  plenitude  of  its  power,  has  under" 
taken  to  exclude  from  all  their  rights  and  privileges  twenty-eight 
presbyteries,  who  are  its  constituents,  without  notice,  and  without 
even  the  form  of  trial.  By  the  resolutions,  the  commissioners,  who 
had  acted  as  members  of  the  General  Assembly  for  two  weeks,  were 
at  once  deprived  of  their  seats.  Four  synods,  twenty-eight  presby- 
teries, five  hundred  and  nine  ministers,  five  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
churches,  and  sixty  thousand  communicants,  were  at  once  disfranchised 
and  deprived  of  their  privileges  in  this  church. 

This  proceeding  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  eternal  principles  of 
justice,  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  but  it  is  at  variance  with 
the  constitution  of  the  church. 

This  is  not  in  the  nature  of  a  legislative,  but  it  is  &  judicial  proceeding 
to  all  intents  and  purposes.  It  is  idle  to  deny  that  the  presbyteries 
within  the  infected  districts,  as  they  are  called,  were  treated  as  ene- 
mies and  offenders  against  the  rules,  regulations,  and  doctrines  of  the 
church.  If  there  is  anything  that  a  man  values,  it  is  his  religious 
rights. 

And  of  this  oj->Inion  were  the  General  Assembly  themselves;  for, 
only  a  few  days  before,  they  came  to  the  following  resolutions : 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  the  proper  steps  now  be  taken  to  cite  to  the  bur  of 


2oG  APPENDIX. 

tlie  next  Assembly,  such  inferior  judicatories  as  are  charged  by  com- 
mon fame  with  irregularities. 

"2.  That  a  special  committee  be  now  appointed  to  ascertain  what 
inferior  judicatories  are  thus  charged  by  common  fame,  prepare 
charges  and  specifications  against  them,  and  to  digest  a  suitable  plan 
of  procedure  in  the  matter,  and  that  said  committee  be  requested  to 
report  as  soon  as  practicable." 

K'othing  further  appears  to  have  been  done  in  this  matter  in  the 
General  Assembly,  for,  after  failure  of  the  attempt  at  compromise, 
they  appear  to  have  discovered  a  much  more  expeditious,  if  not  a 
more  agreeable  method  of  effecting  their  object. 

I  have  said  that  exscinding  the  presbyteries  without  notice,  and 
without  trial,  was  not  only  contrary  to  the  common  law,  but  it  was 
contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  church.  And  it  is  only  necessary 
to  open  the  book  of  discipline  to  see  how  very  careful  the  fathers  of 
the  church  have  been  to  secure  to  the  accused  a  full,  fair  and  impar- 
tial trial. 

Kotice  is  given  to  the  parties  concerned,  at  least  ten  days  before 
the  meeting  of  the  judicatory.  The  accused  are  informed  of  the  names 
of  all  the  witnesses  to  be  adduced  against  them.  When  the  charges 
are  exhibited,  the  time,  places  and  circumstances  are  stated,  if,  by 
possibility,  they  can  be  ascertained:  citations  are  issued,  signed 
by  the  moderator  or  clerk,  by  order,  and  in  the  name  of  the  judi- 
catory. 

Judicatories  are  enjoined  to  ascertain,  before  proceeding  to  trial, 
that  their  citations  have  been  duly  served.  And,  to  secure  a  fair  and 
impartial  trial,  the  witnesses  are  to  be  examined  in  the  presence  of 
the  accused,  who  is  permitted  to  ask  any  question  tending  to  his  own 
exculpation.  The  judgment,  when  rendered,  is  regularly  entered  on 
the  recoi'ds  of  the  judicatory. 

If  these  proceedings,  before  judgment,  are  requisite  in  the  case  of 
the  meanest  member  of  the  church,  (the  omission  of  which,  by  any  of 
the  inferior  judicatories,  would  call  down  on  the  offenders  the  se- 
verest censure  of  the  General  Assembly,)  it  is  inconceivable  that  simi- 
lar precautions  are  not  necessary  to  protect  the  rights  of  presbyteries, 
which  consist  of  many  individuals,  from  the  injustice,  violence,  and 
party  spirit  of  the  General  Assembly  itself.  Constitutions  are  in- 
tended to  protect  the  weak,  the  minority  from  the  injustice  of  the 
majority. 

The  majority,  for  the  most  part,  are  able  to  protect  themselves.  It 
is  the  minority  that  need  protection,  and  for  this  purpose  it  is  neces- 
sary to  encircle  them  with  at  least  all  the  forms  of  justice. 


APPENDIX.  237 

This,  as  has  been  before  observed,  is  a  judicial  act;  and  if  a  regular 
trial  had  been  had,  and  judgment  rendered,  the  sentence  would  have 
been  conclusive.  "We  should  not  have  attempted  to  examine  the 
justice  of  the  proceeding;  but  inasmuch  as  there  have  been  no  cita- 
tions, and  no  trial,  I  instruct  you,  that  the  resolutions  of  the  General 
Assembly  exscinding  the  four  Synods  of  Utiea,  Geneva,  Genesee,  and 
the  Western  Reserve,  are  unconstitutional,  null  and  void. 

The  judgments  of  all  courts,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  whe- 
ther of  inferior  or  superior  judicatories,  are  absolutely  void  when 
rendered  without  citations,  and  without  trial,  and  without  the  op- 
portunity of  a  hearing. 

But  admitting  this  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  legislative  proceeding, 
still  it  is  void ;  for  I  deny  the  right  of  any  legislature  to  deprive  an 
elector  of  his  right  to  vote,  either  with  or  without  trial. 

This  is  a  power  which  can  only  be  exercised  by  a  judicial  tribunal, 
who  act  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath,  who  examine  witnesses  on 
oath,  and  who  conform  to  all  the  rules  of  evidence  established  by  the 
usages  of  the  law. 

If  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  should  dare,  by  resolution  or 
otherwise,  to  deprive  one  of  you,  gentlemen,  of  your  right  as  an 
elector,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  declare  such  an  act  null 
and  void.  I  am  unable  to  distinguish  the  difference  between  the  two 
cases. 

"Whether  the  General  Assembly  are  the  proper  tribunal,  in  the  first 
instance,  for  the  trial  of  offences,  or  whether  the  presbyteries  are 
amenable  to  their  judicatories,  in  this  or  any  other  mode,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  decide ;  as  the  Court  are  clearly  of  the  opinion,  that  if  they 
have  the  right,  it  must  be  exercised  with  the  same  rules  and  regula- 
tions which  are  applicable  to  the  inferior  judicatories. 

Personal  process  in  each  case  may  be  "  tedious,  agitating  and  trou- 
blesome in  the  highest  degree  ;"  but  it  is  obviously  not  impossible. 
Nor  does  it  strike  me  as  impossible  to  devise  a  plan  under  the  consti- 
tution to  correct  heresy  and  schism,  without  resort  to  personal  pro- 
cess in  each  case.  But  if  it  were  so,  this  is  an  excuse,  but  it  is  no 
justification  of  the  exscinding  resolutions. 

Offenders,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  church,  may  be  brought 
before  a  judicatory  by  common  fame.  But  I  perceive  no  power  given 
to  convict  on  common  fame. 

You  will  remark,  gentlemen,  that  the  presbyteries,  by  the  consti- 
tution of  the  church,  are  the  electors  of  the  General  Assembly.  Their 
right  of  representation  has  been  taken  away  without  trial,  without 
the  examination  (as  far  as  we  k«ow)  of  a  single  witness. 


238  APPENDIX. 

Whether  these  presbyteries  have  Congregational  churches  in  their 
connexion,  is  not  now  material.  It  is  possible  that  had  a  trial  been 
had,  that  point,  which  is  deemed  so  important,  might  have  been  dis- 
proved. At  any  rate,  it  would  seem  a  singular  reason  for  dissolving 
a  whole  presbytery,  that  one  church  was  contaminated  with  false  and 
heretical  doctrine?,  or  doctrines  not  strictly  Presbyterian  ;  that  a 
whole  presbytery  should  be  ejected,  because  a  single  church  was 
governed  without  the  benefit  of  ruling  elders.  It  would  be  a  reason, 
perhaps  a  good  one,  for  cutting  off  that  church  from  the  Presbyterian 
connexion,  but  none  for  casting  out  the  whole  presbytery.  And  this, 
gentlemen,  would  be  particularly  severe  on  the  members  and  congre- 
gations, when  the  fact  was  known  at  the  time  the  presbytery  was 
created  that  such  connexion  did  exist. 

If,  however,  after  having  condemned  this  (as  it  is  called)  unnatural 
connexion,  the  presbyteries  should  obstinately  continue  to  adhere  to 
it,  then  they  would  justly  expose  themselves  to  the  severest  cen- 
cures  of  the  church.  But  whether  there  is  any  mode  known  to  the 
constitution,  by  which  a  bresbytery  can  be  deprived  of  the  right  of 
representation  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly,  is  a  point 
which  is  not  necessary  to  the  case,  and  which  I  shall  not  undertake  to 
decide. 

I  have  been  requested  by  the  respondents'  counsel  to  instruct  you, 
that  the  introduction  of  lay  delegates  from  Congregational  establish- 
ments into  the  judicatories  of  the  Pi'csbyterian  Church,  was  a  violation 
of  the  fundamental  principle  of  Presby  terianism,  and  a  contradiction 
of  the  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  incorporating  the 
Trustees  of  the  church:  that  any  act  pei'mitting  such  introduction 
would  therefore  have  been  void,  although  submitted  to  the  presby- 
teries. As  an  abstract  question  on  this  point,  I  give  an  affirmative 
answer,  although,  gentlemen,  I  am  unable  to  see  the  bearing  it  has 
on  the  matter  at  issue  in  this  cause. 

You  have  already  seen  that  the  Court  is  of  the  opinion,  that  the  ex- 
scinding resolutions  are  unconstitutional,  null  and  void  ;  yet  this  did 
not  of  itself  dissolve  the  General  Assembly.  The  General  Assembly 
was  dissolved  only  at  the  termination  of  its  sessions.  You  will  per- 
ceive in  the  course  of  the  remarks  which  I  shall  have  to  make  to  you, 
that  the  acts  of  this  Assembly  will  have  an  important  influence  on  the 
proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  1838. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  entitled  to  de- 
cide upon  the  right  claimed  by  any  one  to  a  seat  in  that  body,  but 
unlike  legislative  bodies,  their  decision  is  the  subject  of  revision. 
Ecclesiastical  judicatories  are  subject  to  the  control  of  the  law. 


APPENDIX.  239 

I  also  instruct  you,  that  a  Mandamus  would  not  reach  the  case,  for 
before  the  remedy  could  be  applied,  the  General  Assembly  would  be 
dissolved,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  foresee  whether  the  next 
Assembly  would  persist  in  their  illegal  and  unconstitutional  course  of 
conduct.  You  will  recollect  that  the  commissioners  are  elected  a 
short  time  befoi'e  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  that 
body,  which  sits  but  a  few  weeks  for  the  transaction  of  business,  is 
dissolved,  and  a  new  General  Assembly  is  called  at  the  termination 
of  the  sessions. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  proceeding  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
IBS'?,  we  will  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  acts  of  1838.  It  will 
perhaps  conduce  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  somewhat  extraor- 
dinary proceedings  which  then  took  place,  to  advert  to  the  practice 
of  the  General  Assembly  in  times  of  less  excitement  and  interest  than 
existed  on  that  occasion. 

After  the  business  of  the  Assembly  is  finished,  the  General  As- 
sembly is  dissolved,  and  another  General  Assembly  is  directed  to  be 
chosen  in  the  same  manner,  to  meet  at  a  time  and  place  designated  by 
the  Assembly. 

The  moderator,  or  in  case  of  his  absence,  another  member  appointed 
for  the  purpose,  opens  the  next  meeting  with  a  sermon  ;  he  is  directed 
to  hold  the  chair  till  a  new  moderator  be  chosen.  As  this  is  for  the 
purpose  of  organization,  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  be  a  member,  nor 
is  it  necessary  that  the  clerks  should  be  members,  who  are  requested 
to  attend  for  the  same  purpose. 

By  the  practice  of  the  Assembly,  in  pursuance  of  a  regulation  for 
that  purpose,  the  stated  and  permanent  clerks  are  a  standing  commit- 
tee on  commissions.  To  th^m  are  submitted  the  commissions  of  mem- 
bers: they  decide  on  them  in  the  first  place,  and  if  unexceptionable 
in  form  or  substance,  they  are  enrolled  as  members  of  the  house :  if 
exceptionable,  they  report  them  as  such  in  a  separate  list.  The  mo- 
derator, after  divine  service,  opens  the  session  with  prayer.  He  takes 
his  seat  as  moderator,  and  proceeds  to  organize  the  house.  The  first 
business  in  order  is  the  report  of  the  clerks,  who  are  the  Committee 
on  Commissions,  who  make  a  report  stating  on  the  roll  those  who 
are  members,  and  designating  either  in  the  roll,  or  in  a  separate  list, 
those  whose  commissions  have  been  examined  and  found  defective 
either  in  form  or  in  substance. 

The  next  business  in  order  is  to  appoint  a  committee  on  elections 
from  the  list  of  members  who  have  been  enrolled. 

To  that  committee  are  referred  the  commissions  of  such  persons 


240  APPENDIX. 

as  may  claim  seats,  "whose  commissions  have  been  examined  and  re- 
jected. 

It  is  usual  to  appoint  the  committee  on  elections  on  the  morning  of 
the  first  daj  of  the  session,  and  they,  unless  in  cases  of  difficulty,  re- 
port to  the  house  in  the  afternoon,  and  the  house  decides  upon  the 
propriety  of  the  report.  It  would  seem  also  to  be  the  practice,  that 
when  a  commissioner  has  omitted  to  hand  in  his  commission  to  the 
clerks,  before  the  meeting  of  the-  Assembly,  he  may  do  so  in  the  As- 
sembly, and  the  Committee  of  Commissions  may  add  his  name  to 
the  roll  of  members. 

After  the  house  is  organized,  they  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a  mode- 
rator, and  stated  and  permanent  clerks,  to  preside  over  their  delibera- 
'tions,  and  to  keep  their  records  during  their  session. 

You  will  observe  that  I  am  speaking  of  the  rules  of  practice  in  the 
sessions  of  ISST  and  1838. 

As  the  church  increased  in  numbers,  and,  I  may  add  without  giving 
offence,  after  the  spirit  of  contention  increased  also  in  the  same  or  a 
greater  ratio,  the  simplicity  of  the  ancient  practice  gradually  changed. 
The  changes  have  been  stated  with  great  clearness  by  one  of  our 
venerable  fathers,  but  as  we  have  to  do  with  existing  rather  than 
ancient  rules,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  notice  them. 

The  jury  will  recollect  that  the  Court  has  decided  that  the  exscind- 
ing resolutions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  were  unconstitu- 
tional, null  and  void. 

It  results  from  this  opinion,  that  the  commissioners  from  the  pres- 
byteries within  the  bounds  of  these  synods,  had  the  same  right  to  seats 
in  the  General  Assembly  as  the  members  from  other  presbyteries 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Assembly,  and  were  liable  to  be  dealt 
with  by  them  in  the  same  manner  as  commissioners  from  other  pres- 
byteries. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  they  presented  themselves,  with 
commissions  in  proper  form,  to  Mr.  Krebs  and  Dr.  M'Dowell,  the 
clerks  of  the  former  Assembly.  They  not  only  rejected  their  com- 
missions, but  refused  to  put  their  names  on  the  roll  at  all. 

I  shall  not  now  stop  to  inquire  whether  these  gentlemen  were,  or 
were  not,  pledged  to  the  course  they  thought  proper  to  pursue,  nor 
into  the  question  whether  they  were  the  judges  of  the  constitutionality 
of  an  act  of  a  former  Assembly,  as  I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion,  and  I  so 
instruct  you,  that  the^  grossly  erred  in  refusing  to  place  their  names 
on  the  list  of  rejected  applicants.  They  were  the  committee  on  com- 
missions to  whom  such  questions  are  in  the  first  place  referred.  It 
was  their  duty  to  decide  on  the  propriety  of  the  application  and  to 


APPENDIX.  241 

refer  the  decision  to  the  further  action  of  the  House,  by  adding  their 
names  to  the  roll  of  members  whose  commissions  had  been  examined 
and  rejected. 

They  cannot  consider  commissions,  in  other  respects  regular,  as  alien 
and  outlawed,  merely  because  they  proceeded  from  presbyteries  that 
had  been  unconstitutionally  put  out  of  the  pale  of  the  church  without 
citation  and  without  trial. 

It  is,  therefore,  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  that  in  this  there  was  a 
palpable  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  proscribed  commissioners. 
And  this,  gentlemen,  was  the  second  error  committed,  and  which  led 
to  the  scene  of  disorder  which  ensued,  so  little  creditable  to  a  Chris- 
tian Assembly. 

After  the  moderator,  Dr.  Elliott,  had  taken  the  chair.  Dr.  Patton 
addressed  the  chair,  and  stated  that  he  had  certain  resolutions  to  offer. 
The  moderator  decided  that  he  was  out  of  order,  that  the  first  busi- 
ness was  the  report  of  the  clerks,  who,  you  will  recollect,  were  the 
committee  on  commissions. 

Dr.  Patton  stated  that  his  motion  or  resolution  had  reference  to  the 
formation  of  the  roll,  that  it  was  his  intention  to  make  his  motion  and 
have  the  question  taken  without  debate.  The  moderator  said  the 
clerks  were  proceeding  wi'h  their  report.  Dr.  Patton  reminded  the 
moderator  that  he  had  the  floor  before  the  clerks.  The  moderator  still 
decided  he  was  out  of  order,  whereupon  Dr.  Patton  respectfully  ap- 
pealed from  the  decision  of  the  chair.  The  moderator  decided  that  the 
appeal  was  out  of  order,  and  stated  as  a  reason  for  the  decision,  that 
there  was  no  House  to  which  the  appeal  could  be  taken. 

The  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  decision  of  the  moderator  was 
correct,  for  the  reasoii"  given  by  him.  It  is  a  rule  of  the  Assembly 
that  no  persons  shall  be  permitted  to  vote  unless  they  are  enrolled, 
and  until  the  report  of  the  committee  on  commissions  it  cannot  be  ju- 
dically  known  who  are  members  of  the  house,  and  as  such,  privileged 
to  take  part  in  the  organization.  If,  however,  there  was  a  majority 
for  it,  arising  from  the  absence  of  the  moderator  or  the  refusal  of  the 
clerks  to  report  the  roll,  there  would  be  no  difiiculty  in  organizing  the 
Assembly.  The  decision  of  the  moderator  was  correct,  if  the  reason 
assigned  was  the  true  reason. 

After  this  disposition  of  Dr.  Patton's  motion,  the  clerks  made  a  report, 
omitting,  improperly,  as  has  been  before  stated,  the  names  of  the  com- 
missioners from  the  exscinded  presbyteries,  and  the  moderator  announ- 
ced to  those  who  had  not  presented  their  commissions,  that  now  was 
the  time  to  present  them,  and  have  themselves  enrolled.  Some  of  the 
witnesses  say  that  the  moderator  announced  that,  if  there  were  any 


242 


APPENDIX. 


Dames  omitted,  this  was  the  time  to  present  their  commissions.  The  one 
side  say  that  this  was  a  distinct  intimation  from  the  moderator  himself? 
that  now  was  the  time  to  present  the  commissions  of  the  commissioners 
from  the  exscinded  presbyteries.  The  other  say  it  included  those  only 
who  had  not  presented  their  commissions  to  the  clerks.  That  the  only 
course  to  be  pm-sued  as  to  those  who  had  presented  their  commissions 
and  had  their  claim  to  be  enrolled,  refused,  was  to  have  their  case  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  on  elections,  on  whose  report  only  it  would 
come  properly  before  the  Assembly. 

However  the  fact  may  be,  and  this  of  course  you  will  decide,  at 
this  time  Dr.  Mason,  a  member  whose  seat  was  uncontested,  and  who 
had  been  reported  by  the  clerks  to  the  house  as  a  member,  moved  that 
the  names  of  the  commissioners  from  the  exscinded  synods  should  be 
added  to  the  roll.  He  had  the  commissions  in  his  hand,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  motion,  stated  that  they  were  the  commissions  of  com- 
missioners, which  had  been  rejected  by  the  clerks.  The  moderator 
inquired  from  what  presbyteries  those  commissioners  came.  Dr.  Ma- 
son replied,  they  came  from  the  Synods  of  Utica,  Geneva,  Genesee 
and  the  Western  Reserve.  The  moderator  declared  Dr.  Mason  out  o 
order,  or  said  that  he  was  out  of  order  at  that  time.  The  witnesses 
differ  as  to  the  precise  expression,  but  whatever  may  have  been  the 
reason  assigned,  they  all  concur  that  the  moderator  declared  Dr.  Ma- 
son out  of  order.  Dr.  Mason  said,  that  with  great  I'espect  for  the  chair, 
he  must  appeal  from  the  decision.  The  appeal  was  seconded.  The 
moderator  refused  to  put  the  appeal,  declaring  the  appeal  to  be  out 
of  order. 

In  this  stage  of  the  cause  it  is  unnecessary  to  decide  whether  the 
original  motion  was  or  was  not  out  of  order.  I  shall  put  this  part  of 
the  case  on  the  refusal  of  the  moderator  to  put  the  question  on  the 
appeal.  The  question  is  not  whether  an  appeal  may  not  be  out  of 
order,  but  it  is  whether  this  appeal  was  out  of  order.  If  the  moder- 
ator had  put  the  question  on  the  appeal,  it  is  possible  the  house  might 
have  decided  that  the  original  motion  was  out  of  order.  They  might 
have  thought  that  the  matter  was  properly  referable  to  the  committee 
of  elections — that  it  was  a  privileged  question  ;  or  the  Assembly  might 
by  possibility  have  taken  a  different  view  of  the  question.  And 
whatever  they  might  have  thought  and  decided,  would  have  been 
conclusive. 

But  by  refusing  to  put  the  question,  the  moderator  took  all  the 
power  to  himself  over  this  question.  .No  reason  was  given  by  the 
moderator.  It  rested  simply  upon  Jda  will.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  it  was  a  dereliction  of  duty — a  usurpation  of  authority,  which 


APPENDIX.  243 

called  for  the  censure  of  the  house.  He  could  not  then  allege,  as  he 
had  done  on  a  former  occasion,  that  there  was  no  house  to  which  the 
appeal  could  be  taken.  At  that  time,  you  will  recollect,  that  the 
clerks  had  made  their  report,  and  it  was  then  ascertained  what  mem- 
bers had  a  right  to  vote. 

Had  the  question  on  the  appeal  been  allowed,  it  could  then  have 
been  ascertained  whether  a  motion  had  been  made  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  committee  on  elections.  As  it  is,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  motion  was  made  before  or  after  the  motion  made  by  Dr.  Mason. 

And  here,  let  me  remark,  that  I  look  upon  the  refusal  of  the  clerks 
to  put  the  names  of  the  commissioners  on  the  roll,  and  this  refusal  of 
the  moderator  to  put  the  question  on  an  aj)peal  to  the  house,  as  most 
unfortunate. 

If  the  excitement  did  not  then  commence,  yet  it,  with  the  uproar 
and  confusion  which  ensued,  from  this  time  greatly  increased.  After 
the  refusal  of  the  moderator  to  allow  an  appeal,  the  Rev.  Miles  P. 
Squier  arose  and  said  that  he  had  presentei  his  commission  to  the 
clerks,  which  they  had  refused  to  receive.  The  moderator  asked 
from  what  presbytery  he  came.  He  said  from  the  presbytery  of  Ge- 
neva. The  moderator  asked  if  it  was  within  the  bounds  of  the  Synod 
of  Geneva.  He  said  it  was.  The  moderator  then  replied,  we  do  not 
Jcnoto  you.  The  precise  meaning  and  import  of  these  words  has  been 
the  subject  of  comment.  It  will  be  for  you  to  give  them  such  weight 
as  you  think  them  entitled  to,  in  another  part  of  this  cause. 

And  here  let  me  remark  that  the  witness  had  not  a  right,  (whatever 
injustice  he  may  have  suffered,)  either  to  speak  or  vote  on  any  ques- 
tion before  the  house.  He  had  not  been  reported  as  a  member  by 
the  clerks;  and  the  rules  of  the  General  Assembly  required,  that  be- 
fore a  member  speak  or  vote  he  must  be  enrolled. 

To  this  time  the  witnesses  substantially  agree  in  their  statement. 
There  was  but  little  noise,  and  but  little  confusion.  Every  person 
saw,  and  every  person  heard,  all  the  transactions  in  the  Assembly. 

And  here,  gentlemen,  it  will  be  your  solemn  duty,  respectfully^  but 
firmly,  to  decide  upon  the  conduct  of  the  moderator. 

Was  he  performing  his  duty  as  the  presiding  officer  of  the  house 
in  its  organization  ?  or  was  he  carrying  out  the  unconstitutional  and 
void  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1837,  which  cut  off 
from  the  body  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  4  synods,  28  presbyteries, 
509  miniflteis,  and  near  60,000  communicants  without  citation  and 
without  trial? 

I  put  the  question  to  you  because  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 


244  APPENDIX. 

that  the  General  Assembly  has  a  right  to  depose  their  moderator,  upon 
sufficient  cause. 

This  power  is  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  house,  otherwise 
the  moderator,  instead  of  being  the  servant,  would  be  the  master  of 
the  house.  There  is  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  the  church  that 
restricts  or  impairs  the  right. 

It  applies  to  all  moderators,  whether  moderators  for  the  session,  or 
moderators  for  organization.  The  right  is,  perhaps,  less  questionable 
in  the  latter,  than  in  the  former  case.  He  is  a  ministerial  as  well  as  a 
judicial  officer. 

Nor  do  I  think  that  they  are  restrained  in  their  choice  to  a  modera- 
tor of  a  former  year,  who  may  be  present.  The  rule  applies  only  to 
ordinary  cases,  when  the  moderator  of  the  last  year  is  not  in  attend- 
ance, or  is  unable,  from  some  physical  reason,  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  office.  It  does  not  apply  to  the  peculiar  and  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances of  this  case. 

The  deposition  of  a  moderator,  and  the  election  of  another  in  his 
place,  it  appears,  is  not  without  precedent  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

There  is  one  thing  certain,  that  the  deposition  of  a  moderator,  and 
the  election  of  another,  if  in  other  respects  regular,  will  not  of  itself 
vitiate  the  organization. 

After  Mr.  Squier  had  taken  his  seat  upon  the  emphatic  declaration 
of  the  moderator,  "we  do  not  know  you,"  Mr.  Cleaveland  arose.  Mr. 
Cleaveland  held  in  his  hand  a  paper,  from  which  he  read,  at  the  same 
time  accompanying  it  with  remarks  not  on  the  paper.  It  is  not  dis- 
tinctly in  evidence  what  he  did  say,  but  in  substance  it  was  perhaps 
this : 

That  as  the  commissioners  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  from 
a  large  number  of  presbyteries,  had  been  refused  their  seats,  and  as 
we  have  been  advised  by  counsel  learned  in  the  law,  that  a  constitu- 
tional organization  of  the  Assembly  must  be  secured  at  this  time  and 
in  this  place,  he  trusted  it  would  not  be  considered  as  an  act  of  dis- 
courtesy, but  merely  a  matter  of  necessity,  if  we  now  proceed  to  or- 
ganize the  General  Assembly  of  1838,  in  the  fewest  words,  the  short- 
est time,  and  with  the  least  interruption  practicable. 

Mr.  Cleaveland  then  moved  that  Dr.  Beraan,  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Troy,  be  moderator,  or,  as  some  of  the  witnesses  say,  that  he  take  the 
chair.  The  motion  being  seconded,  the  question  was  put  by  Mr. 
Cleaveland,  and  was  carried,  as  the  witnesses  for  the  relators  say,  by  a 
large  majority,  and  by  this  they  mean  that  a  lai'ge  majority  of  voices 
voted  in  the  affirmative.  The  question  was  reversed,  and,  as  the  same 
witnesses  say,  there  were  some  voices  coming  from  the  south-west  cor- 


APPENDIX.  245 

ner  of  the  church,  who  voted  in  the  negative.     This  is  denied  by  the 
respondents. 

Dr.  Beman,  who  was  sitting  in  a  pew,  the  locality  of  which  has 
been  described  to  you,  stepped  into  the  aisle  and  called  the  house  to 
order.  A  motion  was  then  made  that  Dr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Gilbert  be 
appointed  clerks.  There  being  no  others  put  in  nomination,  the  ques- 
tion was  put  by  the  moderator,  Dr.  Beman,  in  the  affirmative  and 
negative,  and  there  was  a  majority  of  voices  in  their  favor. 

Dr.  Beman  then  stated,  that  the  next  business  in  order  was  the 
election  of  a  moderator.  A  member  nominated  Dr.  Fisher,  apd  no 
other  person  being  in  nomination,  the  question  was  put  affirmatively 
and  negatively,  and  Dr.  Fisher  was  elected  by  a  large  majority  of 
voices.  There  were  no  negative  votes  on  this  nomination ;  several 
of  the  witnesses  say  he  was  unanimously  elected. 

Dr.  Beman  then  announced  the  election  of  Dr.  Fisher  as  mode- 
rator, and  said,  he  should  govern  himself  by  the  rules  which  might 
be  hereafter  adopted. 

Dr.  Fisher  stepped  into  the  aisle,  moved  towards  the  north  end  of 
the  church,  and  called  for  business  ;  and  Dr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Gilbert 
were  chosen  clerks,  no  others  being  put  in  nomination. 

Dr.  Beman  stated  that  some  difficulties  had  been  made  by  the  trus- 
tees about  the  occupation  of  the  church  in  which  they  were  then  sit- 
ting. To  avoid  difficulty,  a  motion  was  made  to  adjourn,  to  meet 
forthwith  at  the  lecture-room  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
question  was  taken  on  the  motion,  and  was  decided  in  the  affirmative, 
there  being  no  votes  in  the  negative.  The  result  of  this  vote  was  an- 
nounced by  Dr.  Fisher,  who  then  stated,  that  if  there  were  any 
commissioners  who  h^d  not  presented  their  commissions,  they  might 
then  and  there  attend  for  that  purpose.  The  members  of  the  house 
then  repaired  to  the  lecture-room  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church, 
proceeded  with  their  business,  and  on  the  24th  of  May,  1838,  elected 
the  relators  trustees,  in  the  place  and  stead  of  the  respondents. 

This  is  the  relators'  ease,  and  here  I  will  direct  your  attention  to 
some  of  the  points  which  have  been  raised  by  the  respondents'  counsel. 
The  respondents  contend  that  Mr.  Cleaveland  had  no  right  to  put 
the  question.  They  object,  also,  to  the  time  and  manner  of  putting 
the  question.  Under  one  or  other  of  these  points  I  will  endeavor 
to  include  the  question  which  has  been  raised,  and  which  has  been 
argued  with  such  force  and  with  such  a  variety  of  illustrations. 

Had  Mr.  Cleaveland  a  right  to  put  this  question  ?  It  must  be  con- 
ceded, that  unless  he  was  authorized  to  take  the  sense  of  the  house, 
the  members  were  not  bound  to  vote  upon  it.     In  ordinary  cases,  it 

11 


246 


APPENDIX. 


is  usual  for  a  member  who  moves  a  question  to  put  it  in  writing,  and 
deliver  it  to  the  speaker,  who,  when  it  has  been  seconded,  proposes  it 
to  the  house,  and  the  house  are  then  said  to  be  in  possession  of  the 
question.  But  this,  the  relators  say,  is  not  an  ordinary  question,  but 
one  of  a  peculiar  nature.  They  allege,  that  the  moderator  had  shown 
gross  partiality  and  injustice  in  the  chair;  that  he  was  <?ngaged  in  a 
plan  or  scheme  to  carry  out  the  unconstitutional  and  void  acts  of  183*7, 
which  deprived  cei'tain  commissioners  of  their  seats;  that  this  author- 
ized the  house  to  displace  him,  and  to  elect  another  to  discharge  the 
duties  which  he  failed  or  was  unwilling  to  perform.  If  this  were  so, 
of  which  you  are  the  judges,  Mr.  Cleaveland  had  a  right  to  take  the  sense 
of  the  house  on  the  propriety  of  the  moderator's  conduct.  It  would 
be  worse  than  useless  to  require  him  to  put  the  question  on  his  own 
deposition,  for  this  the  house  were  authorized  to  believe  he  would  re- 
fuse to  perform,  as  he  had  failed  in  the  performance  of  his  duty  before. 
The  law  compels  no  person  to  do  a  vain  or  nugatory  thing.  The  law 
maxim  is,  "  Lex  7ieminem  cogit  ad  vana,  sen  impossibilia."  Nor,  gen- 
tlemen, was  it  necessary  that  it  should  be  taken  by  clerks,  if  they,  as 
well  as  the  moderator,  were  engaged  in  the  same  plan,  to  deprive 
members  of  seats  to  which  they  were  justly  and  constitutionally  en- 
titled. It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  that  a  member,  although  not 
an  officer,  is  entitled  to  put  a  question  to  the  house  in  such  circum- 
stances. 

The  motion  which  Mr,  Cleaveland  made,  after  explaining  his  object, 
was  either  that  Dr.  Beman  be  moderator,  or  that  Dr.  Beman  be  called 
to  the  chair.  It  is  of  no  consequence  in  which  form  the  motion  was 
made.  They  are  substantially  the  same.  The  motion  amounted  to 
this:  that  Dr.  Elliott,  who  occupied  the  chair,  should  be  deposed,  and 
that  Dr.  Beman  should  be  elected  chairman  and  moderator  in  his  stead. 
It  was  a  pertinent  question,  easily  understood,  and  not  calculated  to 
mislead  the  dullest  member  of  the  Assembly.  It  was  in  proper  form 
and  in  proper  time :  for,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  necessary  to  precede 
it  by  a  motion  that  the  house  should  now  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a 
moderator.  All  these  requisites  are  substantially  comprised  in  the 
motion  which  was  made.  There  was  nothing  in  the  question,  or  in 
the  manner  of  putting  it,  which  was  disorderly,  or  which  should  have 
led  to  disorder.  Mr.  Cleaveland  put  the  question  to  the  house,  which, 
under  certain  circumstances,  of  which  I  have  already  said  you  are  the 
judges,  he  had  a  right  to  do.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  turned 
liimself  partly  round  from  the  moderator ;  but  this,  so  far  as  any  point 
of  law  is  involved,  is  of  no  sort  of  consequence.  It  is  also  contended 
by  the  respondents,  that  the  claim  of  members  to  seats,  according  to 


APPENDIX.  247 

the  standing  order  of  the  house,  was  referable  to  the  committee  on 
elections,  and  further  that  the  house  cannot  enter  into  business  until 
the  organization  is  complete.  The  latter  point  the  Court  answers  in 
the  negative.  There  is  no  doubt  the  house  may  elect  a  moderator, 
although  the  seats  of  some  of  the  members  are  contested.  In  gen- 
eral, they  would  prefer  to  await  the  report  of  the  committee  on  elec- 
tions ;  but  this  would  be  a  matter  of  discretion.  The  right  to  seats 
would  be  as  well,  if  not  better  decided,  after  the  house  was  organized 
by  the  election  of  a  moderator,  as  when  it  was  in  its  inchoate  or  in- 
cipient state.  Such  an  objection  would  not  vitiate  the  organization, 
whatever  cause  there  miglit  be  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  been  de- 
prived of  seats,  to  complain  of  the  precipitation  of  the  Assembly  in 
proceeding  to  business,  particularly  if  done  with  a  view  of  preventing 
them  from  partaking  in  the  business. 

In  deciding  on  the  first  point,  and  others  which  have  been  raised 
by  the  respondents,  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  the  nature  of  the  ques- 
tions themselves. 

Dr.  Mason  moved  that  the  names  of  certain  members  who  had  been 
unconstitutionally  and  unjustly  deprived  of  seats  in  the  Assembly, 
should  be  added  to  the  roll.  The  motion  of  Mr.  Cleaveland,  and  the 
subsequent  resolutions  or  motions,  were  the  consequences  of  the  de- 
cision of  the  moderator,  that  Dr.  Mason's  motion  was  out  of  order,  and 
the  refusal  of  the  moderator  to  allow  an  appeal  to  the  house.  The 
right  of  members  was  unjustly  invaded,  and  from  this  moment  it  be- 
came a  question  of  privilege,  which  overrides  all  other  questions 
whatever.  A  question  of  privilege  is  always  in  order,  to  which  pri- 
vileged questions,  such  as  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  elec- 
tions, must  give  way.  "^  The  cry,  therefore,  of  "  order,"  from  the  mod- 
erator, or  from  any  member  whatever,  under  such  circumstances, 
would  be  disorderly.  Two  inconsistent  rights  cannot  exist  at  the 
same  time,  and  it  is  obvious  that  if  a  member,  or  the  moderator,  may 
put  a  stop  to  a  proceeding  which  involves  in  it  the  conduct  of  the 
moderator  himself  in  the  discharge  of  his  high  functions,  and  a  ques- 
tion of  privilege,  by  the  cry  of  order,  it  would  be  an  easy  and  effectual 
mode  of  destroying  the  rights  of  members  in  any  deliberative 
assembly.  It  is  usual,  when  it  is  intended  to  prevent  a  mem- 
ber from  proceeding  with  a  motion,  to  rise  to  order,  and  a  re- 
quisition is  then  made  by  the  moderator  that  the  member  take 
his  seat.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  that  Dr.  Mason  had  the  right 
to  make  his  motion  before  the  appointment  of  the  committee  on  elec- 
tions. Indeed,  I  know  of  no  other  mode  of  getting  this  question  be- 
fore the  committee  on  elections,  except  by  bringing  it  before  the 


248  APPENDIX. 

house,  who  might  either  decide  it  themselves,  or,  if  they  thought 
proper,  refer  it  to  that  committee,  in  whose  report  it  would  again  come 
before  the  house.  In  this  point,  I  wish  you  distinctly  to  understand, 
that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  and  that  I  so  instruct  you,  that  if 
you  believe  that  the  conduct  of  the  moderator  and  clerks  was  the  re- 
sult of  a  preconcerted  plan  with  a  portion  of  the  members  to  carry 
out  the  unconstitutional  and  void  acts  of  1837,  which  deprived  the 
members  from  certain  presbyteries  of  seats  in  the  Assembly,  then,  in 
this  particular,  the  requisitions  of  the  law  have  been  substantially  com- 
plied with. 

That  the  fact  that  Mr.  Cleaveland  put  the  question  instead  of  the 
moderator,  the  cries  of  order  when  this  was  in  progress,  the  omission 
of  some  of  the  formula  usually  observed,  when  there  is  no  contest  and 
no  excitement,  such  as  standing  in  the  aisle,  instead  of  taking  the  chair 
occupied  by  the  moderator,  not  using  the  usual  insignia  of  office,  put- 
ting the  question  in  an  unusual  place,  and  the  short  time  consumed 
in  the  organization  of  the  house,  and  three  or  more  members  standing 
at  the  same  time,  will  not  vitiate  the  organization,  if  you  should  be 
of  the  opinion  that  this  became  necessary,  from  the  illegal  and  im- 
proper conduct  of  the  adverse  party. 

It  is  a  singular  point,  gentlemen,  that  this  part  of  the  respondents' 
case  rests  upon  standing  rules  which  were  not  then  in  existence.  You 
will  recollect,  that  each  Assembly  adopted  its  own  rules ;  indeed  both 
the  relators  and  respondents  have  appealed  to  these  rules.  I  will  re- 
mark, that  the  roll  of  members  reported  by  Mr.  Krebs  and  Dr. 
M'Dowell,  was  the  roll  of  the  house.  As  such,  it  was  virtually  in  the 
possession  of  the  clerks  afterwards  chosen,  provided  they  were  reg- 
ularly and  duly  elected.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  court,  that  the  ex- 
istence of  a  house  competent  to  perform  all  the  functions  of  a  General 
Assembly,  does  not  depend  on  the  observance  or  non-observance  of 
the  standing  order  of  the  house.  You,  however,  must  take  this  opinion 
with  the  qualification,  that  you  believe  that  the  house  had  been  sub- 
stantially organized  for  the  transaction  of  business ;  that  you  should 
believe  that  the  deviation  from  the  accustomed  course,  was  the  ne- 
cessary result  of  a  preconcerted  plan,  unconstitutionally  to  exclude  the 
members  from  the  exscinded  presbyteries  from  their  seats  in  the  As- 
sembly. And  here,  gentlemen,  let  me  request  your  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  point  in  issue.  The  relators  say,  that  they  are  trustees 
regularly  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  In  other  words,  they  affirm  that  the  house  which  assembled 
in  the  lecture-room  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  was  the  General 


APPENDIX.  249 

Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  This  is  an  affirmative  propo- 
sition, which  the  relators  are  bound  to  support. 

The  question  is  not,  which  is  the  General  Assembly,  but  whether 
they  are  the  General  Assembly,  and  as  such  had  a  right  to  elect  the 
relators  trustees.  This  allegation  the  relators  must  sustain  to  your 
satisfaction,  otherwise  your  verdict  must  be  in  favor  of  the  respon  - 
dents. 

The  respondents  strenuously  deny  that  the  portion  of  brethren  who 
asssembled  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  are  the  General  Assem' 
bly.  On  this  point,  both  parties,  the  relators  and  respondents,  have 
put  themselves  upon  the  country — and  you,  gentlemen,  are  that  coun- 
try. 

Let  me  now  briefly  call  your  attention  to  the  relators'  ease.  The 
moderator.  Dr.  Elliott,  proceeded  to  organize  the  house.  The  clerks, 
Mr.  Krebs  and  Dr.  M'Dowell,  reported  to  the  house  the  roll  of  mem- 
bers, omitting  those  who  were  not  entitled  to  seats.  Dr.  Patton  of- 
fered a  resolution  on  the  formation  of  the  roll.  This  motion  was  de- 
clared by  the  moderator  to  be  out  of  order,  also  his  appeal  was  de- 
clared to  be  out  of  order.  Dr.  Mason  then  moved  that  the  names  of 
the  members  from  the  Presbyteries  within  the  exscinded  Synods 
should  be  added  to  the  roll.  This  motion  was  declared  by  the  mod- 
erator to  be  out  of  order.  An  appeal  from  that  decision  was  denqand- 
ed,  which  was  also  declared  to  be  out  of  order.  On  motion  of  Mr. 
Cleaveland,  the  former  moderator  was  deposed  for  sufficient  cause, 
and  Dr.  Beraan  was  elected  moderator,  and  Mr.  Gilbert  and  Dr.  Ma- 
son were  elected  clerks.  After  organization.  Dr.  Fisher  was  elected 
moderator,  and  Mr.  Gilbert  and  Dr.  Mason  elected  clerks  for  the 
Assembly.  The  Assembly  being  thus  organized  by  the  appointment 
of  officers,  adjourned  to  meet  forthwith  at  the  lecture-room  of  the 
First  Presbyterian  Church,  and  accordingly  met  in  pursuance  of  the 
adjournment,  and  on  the  24:th  of  May,  1838,  in  due  form,  elected  the 
relators  trustees.  This,  gentlemen,  is  a  summary  of  the  plaintiffs'  case ; 
and  if  the  facts  are  as  stated,  your  verdict  should  be  rendered  in  fa- 
vor of  the  relators. 

The  respondents  deny  that  the  portion  of  brethren  who  assembled 
in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  are  the  General  Assembly. 

Their  objection,  in  addition  to  the  points  which  have  been  already 
stated,  is,  that  there  was  not  a  full  and  free  expression  of  the  opinion 
of  the  house. 

They  allege  that  the  various  motions  for  the  appointment  of  mod- 
erator and  clerks,  and  for  the  adjournment,  were  not  carried  by  a 
majority  of  the  house. 


250  APPENDIX. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  spectators  had  no  right  to 
vote,  nor  had  members  not  enrolled  by  the  clerks,  although  entitled 
to  seats,  a  right  to  vote.  But  notwithstanding  this,  it  is  the  opinion 
of  the  Courts  that  if,  after  deductiag  those  who  voted  and  .were  not 
entitled  to  vote,  there  was  a  clear  majority  in  favor  of  several  motions, 
this  irregularity,  or  if  you  please,  something  worse,  would  not  vitiate 
the  organization.  The  presumption  is,  that  none  but  qualified  per- 
sons voted ;  but  there  is  proof  that  some  voted  who  were  not  enrolled, 
yet  this  of  itself  will  not  destroy  the  relators'  right  of  action. 
You,  gentlemen,  will  in  the  first  plaae,  inquire  whether  there  was  a 
majority  of  affirmative  voices  of  members  entitled  to  a  vote. 

If  there  was  not,  there  is  an  end  of  the  question,  and  your  verdict 
must  be  in  favor  of  the  respondents. 

But  if  there  was  a  majority,  you  will  further  inquire  whether  the 
question  on  the  several  motions  was  reversed. 

If  they  were  not  reversed,  your  verdict  must  be  in  favor  of  the  res- 
pondents ;  for  in  that  ease,  it  is  very  clear,  the  members  had  no  oppor- 
tunity of  showing  their  dissent  to  several  motions  or  propositions 
which  were  submitted  to  them. 

These,  gentlemen,  are  questions  of  fact  for  your  decision.  I  will 
content  myself  with  referring  to  the  evidence  and  the  arguments  of 
the  counsel,  and  at  the  same  time  observing  to  you  that  it  is  your 
duty  to  reconcile  the  testimony  of  your  case,  and  with  one  other  ob- 
servation, that  affirmative  testimony  is  more  to  be  relied  on  than 
negative  testimony. 

And  here,  gentlemen,  I  wish  you  distinctly  to  understand,  that  it 
is  the  majority  of  those  who  were  entitled  to  vote,  and  who  actually 
voted,  that  is  to  be  counted  on  the  various  questions  which  were 
submitted  to  the  house.  I  wish  you  also  to  understand,  that  it  is  the 
majority  of  members  that  had  been  enrolled,  that  must  determine 
this  question,  "When  there  is  a  quorum  of  members  present,  the 
moderator  can  only  notice  those  who  actually  vote,  and  not  those 
who  do  not  choose  to  exercise  their  privilege  of  voting.  "  When- 
ever," says  Lord  Mansfield,  "  electors  are  present,  and  don't  vote  at 
all,  they  virtually  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  those  who  do." 

And  with  this  principle,  agrees  one  of  the  rules  of  the  General  As- 
sembly itself,  which  must  be  familiar  to  every  member. 

"Members  (30th  rule,)  ought  not,  without  weighty  reasons,  to  de- 
cline voting,  as  this  practice  might  leave  the  decision  of  very  interest- 
ing questions  to  a  small  proportion  of  the  judicatory.  Silent  mem- 
bers, unless  excused  from  voting,  must  be  considered  as  acquiescing 
with  the  majority." 


APPENDIX.  251 

This  is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  the  common  law,  of  the  written 
law,  as  you  have  seen,  but  it  is  the  doctrine  of  common  sense  ;  for 
without  the  benefit  of  this  rule,  it  would  be  almost  impossible,  cer- 
tainly very  inconvenient,  to  transact  business  in  a  large  deliberative 
assembly. 

Of  this  rule,  gentlemen,  we  have  had  very  lately  a  most  memorable 
instance.  The  fundamental  principles  of  yoin*  government  have  been 
altered ;  a  new  constitution  has  been  established  by  a  plurality  of 
votes ;  forty  thousand  electors,  who  deposited  their  votes  for  one  or 
other  of  the  candidates  for  governor,  did  not  cast  them  at  all  on  that 
most  interesting  and  important  of  all  questions.  But  notwithstanding 
this,  the  amended  constitution  has  been  proclaimed  by  your  executive, 
and  recognized  by  your  legislature  and  by  the  people,  as  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  This,  gentlemen,  has  been  stigmatized  as  a  technical 
rule  of  law,  a  fiction  and  intendment  in  law.  It  is  sufficient  for  us, 
gentlemen,  that  it  is  a  rule  of  law.  "We  must  not  be  wiser  than  the 
law;  for  if  we  attempt  this,  we  endanger  everything  we  hold  dear; 
our  life,  our  liberty,  our  property. 

Kor,  gentlemen,  can  we  know  any  thing  of  any  fancied  equity  as 
contradistinguished  fi'om  the  law.  The  law  is  the  equity  of  the  case, 
and  it  must  be  so  considered  under  the  most  awful  responsibility,  by 
this  court  and  this  jury.  In  my  opinion,  a  court  and  jury  can  never 
be  better  employed  than  when  they  are  vindicating  the  safe  and 
salutary  principles  of  the  common  law. 

But  the  respondents  further  object  that  the  design  of  the  IS'ew 
School  brethren  was  not  to  organize  a  General  Assembly  according 
to  the  forms  prescribed  by  the  constitution,  but  that  they  intended, 
and  it  was  so  understood  by  them,  to  effect  an  ex  parte  organization, 
with  a  view  to  a  peaceable  separation  of  the  church.  If  this  was  the 
intention,  and  was  so  understood  at  the  time,  the  house  which  as- 
sembled in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  cannot  be  recognized  as 
the  General  Assembly,  competent  to  appoint  trustees  under  the 
charter.  Having  chosen  voluntarily  to  leave  the  church,  they  can  no 
longer  be  permitted  to  participate  in  its  advantages  and  privileges. 
If  a  member,  or  a  number  of  individuals,  choose  to  abandon  their 
church,  they  must  at  the  same  time  be  content  to  relinquish  all  its 
benefits. 

But  this  is  a  question  of  fact,  which  you  must  decide.  In  this  part 
of  the  case,  the  burden  of  proof  is  thrown  on  the  respondents.  They 
must  satisfy  you  that  such  was  the  intention  of  the  K^ew  School  party, 
in  organizing  the  house,  and  adjourning  to  the  First  Presbyterian 
Church.     But  granting  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cleaveland  was  in  or- 


252  APPENDIX. 

der,  that  Drs.  Beman  and  Fisher,  and  the  clerks  had  a  majority  of 
votes,  that  the  intention  was  to  organize  the  General  Assembly,  and 
that  they  did  not  intend  an  ex  parte  organization,  the  respondents 
eay  that  such  was  the  precipitation  and  haste  of  these  proceedings, 
their  extraordinary  and'  novel  character,  the  noise,  tumult  and  con- 
fusion, that  they  and  the  other  members  of  the  house  had  no  oppor- 
tunity of  hearing  and  voting,  if  they  had  wished  to  do  so,  and  that 
therefore  this  is  an  attempt  at  organization,  which  is  null  and  void. 

It  is  very  certain,  that  if  individual  members  of  a  deliberative  as- 
sembly, by  trick  and  artifice,  by  surprise,  noise,  tumult  and  confusion, 
cany  such  a  question  as  this,  it  ought  not,  it  cannot  be  regarded.  The 
members  must  have  an  opportunity  to  debate,  to  vote  if  they  desire 
it,  and  for  this  reason  it  is,  the  negative  question  must  be  put,  and 
that  the  several  questions  must  be  reversed. 

It  will  be  for  you  to  eay,  whether  the  members  had  this  opportu- 
nity.    To  this  part  of  the  case,  I  request  your  particular  attention. 

If  you  believe  that  the  several  motions  were  made  and  reversed, 
that  they  were  carried  by  a  majority  of  affirmative  voices,  whatever 
may  be  your  opinion  of  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties  in 
the  Assembly,  your  verdict  must  be  for  the  relators.  I  hold  it  to  be 
a  most  clear  proposition,  that  silent  members  acquiesce  in  the  decision 
of  the  majority.  It  is  of  no  sort  of  consequence  for  what  reason  they 
were  silent;  whether  from  a  previous  determination,  or  otherwise. 
The  effect  is  the  same,  provided  they  had  an  opportunity  of  hearing 
and  voting  on  the  question.  It  is  not  necessary  that  all  should  hear 
or  vote. 

If  persons  Avho  are  members  of  an  assembly,  by  surprise,  by  noise, 
or  violence,  carry  such  a  question,  such  a  vote  cannot  be  considered 
as  the  deliberate  sense  of  the  assembly  ;  but  when  members  are  aware 
of  the  nature  of  the  proceedings,  and  ciioose  to  treat  them  with  con- 
tempt, or  to  interrupt  the  business  themselves,  by  stamping,  noise, 
talking,  cries  of  order,  or  shame !  shame  !  or  requesting  silence  with 
a  view  to  interruption,  or  attending  to  other  business,  when  they 
ought  to  be  attending  to  this,  they  cannot  be  permitted  afterwards  to 
allege  that  they  had  no  opportunity  to  vote.  They  cannot  take  ad- 
vantage of  their  own  wrong,  or  their  own  folly.  In  such  a  case, 
their  silence,  or,  if  you  choose,  noise,  shall  be  viewed  as  an  acquies- 
cence in  the  vote  of  the  majority.  But  when  members  are  prevented 
from  hearing  and  understanding  the  question  by  the  noise  and  con- 
fusion, or  by  the  indecent  haste  with  which  the  business  is  conducted, 
the  organization  is  not  such  as  can  give  it  any  legal  validity.  It  is 
of  no  consequence  whether  the  members  are  prevented  from  voting 


APPENDIX. 


253 


unders'andingly  on  the  question  by  the  persons  engaged  in  conduct- 
ing the  business,  or  by  the  spectators.  But  when  it  comes  from  the 
members  of  the  other  party,  they  shall  not  be  permitted  to  object, 
when  they  themselves  are  the  causes  of  the  difficulty. 

If  facts  be  so,  they  (the  members  of  the  Old  School,)  did  not  hear, 
because  they  would  not  hear ;  they  did  not  vote,  because  they  would 
not  vote.  Tliey  caused  the  disorder,  and  let  them  reap  the  bitter 
fruits  of  their  injustice.  The  court,  and  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
have  nothing  to  do  with  consequences,  with  fancied  majorities  and 
minorities,  but  with  majorities  legally  ascertained.  We  are  placed 
at  this  bar  under  an  awful  responsibility  to  do  justice,  without  regard 
to  the  numerical  strength  of  the  contending  parties. 

If  you,  gentlemen,  believe  that  the  questions  were  not  reversed, 
that  they  were  not  carried,  that  the  members  of  the  Assembly  had 
not  an  opportunity  of  hearing  and  voting  upon  them,  your  verdict 
should  be  in  favor  of  the  respondents.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
you  believe  they  intended  to  organize  the  Assembly ;  that  the  ques- 
tions were  severally  put;  that  the  noise,  tumult  and  confusion  which 
prevailed  in  the  Assembly,  were  the  result  of  a  preconcerted  plan, 
or  combination,  or  conspiracy  between  the  clerks,  the  moderator,  and 
the  members  of  the  Old  School  party,  to  sustain  the  unconstitutional 
and  void  resolutions  of  1837,  which  deprived  members  of  seats  to 
which  they  were  justly  entitled,  your  verdict  should  be  in  favor  of 
the  relators. 

And  here  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  having  expressed,  or  even 
intimated  an  opinion  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  facts  are  for 
you,  the  law  is  for  the  Court. 

And  now,  gentlem'fen,  I  entreat  you,  as  you  sJiall  ansicer  to  God  at 
the  great  day,  that  you  discard  from  your  minds  all  partiality,  if  any 
you  have,  fear,  favor  and  affection ;  that  you  decide  this  interesting 
cause  according  to  the  evidence,  and  that  you  remember  that  the 
law  is  part  of  your  evidence.  The  Court,  and  you,  gentlemen,  are 
placed  at  this  bar  under  an  awful  eesponsibility  to  do  justice. 

VERDICT. 

The  jury,  after  a  short  absence,  returned  into  Court  and  rendered 
their  verdict,  which,  as  read  to  them,  and  ordered  to  be  recorded,  is, 
"that  they  find  the  defendants  guilty." 

Some  question  was  made  by  counsel  for  the  defendants,  in  regard 
to  the  form  of  the  verdict,  when  it  was  announced  from  the  bench, 
that  the  Chief  Justice  had  prescribed  this  as  the  technical  form  of  the 
verdict,  (under  the  issue  in  this  case,)  if  the  jury  shoiild  find  that 
the  relators  were  the  trustees  of  General  Assembly ;  that  is,  that  the 

11* 


254  APPENDIX. 

Assembly  wliicli  lield  its  sittings  iii  the  First  Presbyterian  Churclx, 
was  the  true  "  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,"  under  the  charter. 


[B.] 
CHIEF  JUSTICE  GIBSON'S  OPINION. 

To  extricate  the  question  from  the  multifarious  mass  of  irrelevant 
matter  in  which  it  is  enclosed,  we  must,  in  the  first  place,  ascertain 
the  specific  character  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  relation  it 
bears  to  the  corporation  which  is  the  immediate  subject  of  our  cog- 
nizance. This  Assembly  has  been  called  a  qiiasi  corpori^fion ;  of 
which  it  has  no  feature.  A  quasi  corporation  has  capacity  to  sue  and 
be  sued  as  an  artificial  person ;  which  the  Assembly  has  not.  It  is 
also  established  by  law ;  which  the  Assembly  is  not.  IS^either  is  the 
Assembly  a  particular  order  or  rank  in  the  corporation,  though  the 
latter  was  created  for  its  convenience ;  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
share-holders  of  a  bank  or  joint-stock  company,  who  are  an  integrant 
part  of  the  body.  It  is  a  segregated  association,  which,  though  it  is 
the  reproductive  organ  of  corporate  succession,  is  not  itself  a  mem- 
ber of  the  body;  and  in  that  respect  it  is  anomalous.  Having  no  cor- 
porate quality  of  itself,  it  is  not  a  subject  of  our  corrective  jurisdic- 
tion, or  of  our  scrutiny,  farther  than  to  ascertain  how  far  its  organic 
structure  may  bear  on  the  question  of  its  personal  identity  or  indi- 
viduality. By  the  charter  of  the  corporation,  of  which  it  is  the  hand- 
maid and  nurse,  it  has  a  limited  capacity  to  create  vacancies  in  it,  and 
an  ulimited  power  over  the  form  and  manner  of  choice  in  filling 
them.  It  would  be  sufficient  for  the  civil  tribunals,  therefore,  that 
the  asseinbled  commissioners  had  constituted  an  actual  body;  and 
that  it  had  made  its  appointment  in  its  own  way,  without  regard  to  its 
fairness  in  respect  to  its  members:  with  this  limitation,  however,  that 
it  had  the  assent  of  the  constitutional  majority,  of  which  the  official 
act  of  authentication  would  be  at  least,  prima  facie  evidence.  It 
would  be  immaterial  to  the  legality  of  the  choice  that  the  majority 
had  expelled  the  minority,  provided  a  majority  of  the  whole  body 
concurred  in  the  choice.  This  may  be  safely  predicated  of  an  imdi- 
vided  Assembly,  and  it  would  be  an  unerring  test  in  the  case  of  a  di- 


APPENDIX.  255 

visiou  could  a  quorum  not  be  constituted  of  less  than  such  a  majority; 
but  unfortunately,  a  quorum  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be  con- 
stituted of  a  very  small  minoi-ity,  so  that  two,  or  even  more,  distinct 
parts  may  have  all  the  external  organs  of  legitimate  existence. 
Hence,  where,  as  in  this  instance,  the  members  have  formed  them- 
selves into  separate  bodies,  numerically  sufficient  for  corporate  capa- 
city and  organic  action,  it  becomes  necessary  to  ascertain  how  far 
either  of  them  was  formed  in  obedience  to  the  conventional  law  of 
the  association,  which,  for  that  purpose  only,  ia  to  be  treated  as  a  rule 
of  civil  obligation. 

The  division  which,  for  purposes  of  designation,  it  is  convenient  to 
call  the  Old  School  party,  was  certainly  organized  in  obedience  to  the 
established  order;  and,  to  legitimate  the  separate  organization  of  its 
rival,  in  contravention,  as  it  certainly  was  of  every  thing  like  prece- 
dent, would  require  the  presentation  of  a  very  urgent  emergency. 
At  the  stated  time  and  place  for  the  opening  of  the  session,  the  parties 
assembled  without  any  ostensible  division  ;  and,  when  the  organization 
of  the  whole  had  proceeded  to  a  certain  point,  by  the  instrumentality 
of  the  moderator  of  the  preceding  session,  who,  for  that  purpose,  was 
the  constitutional  organ,  a  provisional  moderator  was  suddenly  cho- 
sen [on  the  motion  of  an  individual  who  had  not  been  reported  or 
enrolled  as  a  member,  and  by  a  minority  of  those  who  actually  voted, 
including  several  who  were  in  the  same  predicament  with  the  mover*] 
by  a  minority  of  those  who  could  be  entitled  to  vote,  including  the 
exscinded  commissioners.  The  question  on  the  motion  to  elect,  was 
put,  not  by  the  chair,  but  by  the  mover  himself;  after  which,  the  se- 
ceding party  elected  a  permanent  moderator,  and  immediately  with- 
drew, leaving  the  other  party  to  finish  its  process  of  organization,  by 
the  choice  of  its  moderator  for  the  session. 

In  justificatioTi  of  this  apparent  irregularity,  it  is  urged  that  the 
constitutional  moderator  had  refused  an  appeal  to  the  commissioners 
in  attendance,  from  his  decision,  which  had  excluded  from  the  roll, 
the  names  of  certain  commissioners  who  had  been  unconstitutionally 
severed,  as  it  is  alleged,  from  the  Presbyterian  connexion  by  a  vote  of 
the  preceding  session.  It  is  conceded  by  the  argument,  that  if  the 
synods  with  the  dependent  presbyteries  by  which  those  commission- 
ers were  sent,  had  been  constitutionally  dissolved,  the  motion  [made 
by  an  exscinded  memberf  ]  was  one  which  the  moderator  was  not 
bound  to  put,  or  the  commissioners  to  notice ;  and  that  whatever  im- 

*  What  follows,  of  this  sentence,  substituted  in  the  published  opinion,  for  the 
portion  in  brackets. 

t  Oioitted  in  the  published  opinion. 


256  APPENDIX. 

plication  of  assent  to  the  decision  which  ensued,  might  otherwise  Le 
deduced  from  the  silence  of  those  who  refused  to  speak  out,  about 
which  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  something  in  the  sequel,  there  was 
no  room  for  any  such  implication  in  the  particular  instance.  It  would 
follow  also,  that  there  was  no  pretence  for  the  deposal  of  the  mode- 
rator, if  indeed  such  a  thing  could  be  legitimated  by  any  circumstan- 
ces, for  refusing  an  appeal- from  his  exclusion  of  those  who  had  no 
color  of  title,  and,  consequently,  that  what  else  might  be  reform, 
would  be  revolution.  And  this  leads  to  an  inquiry  into  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  act  of  excision. 

The  sentence  of  excision,  as  it  has  been  called,  was  nothing  else 
than  an  ordinance  of  dissolution.  It  bore  that  the  synods  in  question, 
having  been  foi'med  and  attached  to  the  body  of  the  Presbyterian. 
Church  under,  and  in  execution  of,  the  Plan  of  Union,  "  be,  and  are 
hereby  declared  to  be,  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  connexion  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America ;  and  that  they 
are  not  in  form  or  in  fact,  an  integral  portion  of  said  church."  !N"ow 
it  will  not  be  said  that  if  the  dissolved  synods  had  no  other  basis  than 
the  Plan  of  Union,  they  did  not  necessarily  fall  along  with  it,  and  it 
is  not  pretended  that  the  Assembly  was  incompetent  to  repeal  the 
union  prospectively,  but  it  is  contended  that  the  repeal  could  not 
impair  rights  of  membership  which  had  grown  up  under  it.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  contended  that  the  Plan  of  Union  was  unconstitu- 
tional and  void  from  the  beginning,  because  it  was  not  submitted  to 
the  presbyteries  for  their  sanction  ;  and  that  no  right  of  membership 
could  spring  from  it.  But  viewed,  not  as  a  constitutional  regulation, 
which  implies  permanency  of  duration,  but  as  a  temporary  expedient, 
it  acquired  the  force  of  a  law  without  the  ratification  of  those  bodies. 
It  was  evidently  not  intended  to  be  permanent,  and  it  consequently 
was  constitutionally  enacted  and  constitutionally  repealed  by  an 
ordinary  act  of  legislation;  and  those  synods  which  had  their  root  in 
it,  could  not  be  expected  to  survive  it.  There  never  was  a  design  to 
attempt  an  amalgamation  of  ecclesiastical  principles  which  are  as 
immiscible  as  water  and  oil;  much  less  to  effect  a  commixture  of 
them  only  at  particular  geographical  points.  Such  an  attempt  would 
have  compromised  a  principle  at  the  very  root  of  Presbyterian 
government,  which  requires  that  the  officers  of  the  church  be  set 
apart  by  special  ordination  for  the  v/ork,  Now  the  character  of  the 
plan  is  palpable,  not  only  in  its  title  and  provisions,  but  in  the  minute 
of  its  introduction  into  the  Assembly.  "We  find  in  the  proceedings  of 
1801,  page  256,  that  a  committee  was  raised  "to  consider  and  digest 
a  plan  of  government  for  the  churches  in  the  new  settlements  agreeably 


APPENDIX.  257 

to  the  proposal  of  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut;"  and  that 
the  plan  adopted  in  conformity  to  its  report,  is  called  "a  Plan  of 
Union  for  the  new  settlements."  The  avowed  object  of  it  was  to  prevent 
alienation;  in  other  words,  the  affiliation  of  Presbyterians  in  other 
churches,  by  suffering  those  who  were  yet  too  few  and  too  poor  for 
the  maintenance  of  a  minister,  temporarily  to  call  to  their  assistance 
the  members  of  a  sect  who  differed  from  them  in  principles,  not  of 
faith,  but  of  ecclesiastical  government.  To  that  end,  Presbyterian 
ministers  were  suffered  to  preach  to  Congregational  Churches,  while 
Presbyterian  Churches  were  suffered  to  settle  Congregational  minis- 
ters ;  and  mixed  congi*egations  were  allowed  to  settle  a  Presbyterian 
or  a  Congregational  minister  at  their  election,  but  under  a  plan  of 
government  and  discipline  adapted  to  the  circumstances.  Surely  this 
was  not  intended  to  outlast  the  inability  of  the  respective  sects  to 
provide  separately  for  themselves,  or  to  perpetuate  the  innovations 
on  Presbyterial  government  which  it  was  calculated  to  produce.  It 
was  obviously  a  missionary  arrangement  from  the  first ;  and  they  who 
built  up  presbyteries  and  f^ynods  on  the  basis  of  it,  had  no  reason  to 
expect  that  their  structures  would  survive  it,  or  that  Congregation- 
alists  might,  by  force  of  it,  gain  a  foothold  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
despite  of  Presbyterial  discipline.  They  embraced  it  with  all  its 
defeasible  properties  plainly  put  before  them ;  and  the  power  which 
constituted  it,  might  fairly  repeal  it,  and  dissolve  the  bodies  that  had 
grown  out  of  it,  whenever  the  good  of  the  church  should  seem  to 
require  it. 

Could  the  synods,  however,  be  dissolved  by  a  legislative  act?  I 
know  not  how  they  could  have  been  legitimately  dissolved,  by  any 
other.  The  Assembly  is  a  homogeneous  body,  uniting  in  itself, 
without  separation  of  parts,  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial 
functions  of  the  government ;  and  its  acts  are  referable  to  the  one  or 
the  other  of  them,  according  to  the  capacity  in  which  it  sat  when 
they  were  performed.  Now,  had  the  exscinded  synods  been  cut  off 
by  a  judicial  sentence,  without  hearing  or  notice,  the  act  would  have 
been  contrary  to  the  cardinal  principles  of  natural  justice,  and  con- 
sequently void.  But,  though  it  was  at  first  resolved  to  proceed 
judicially,  the  measure  was  abandoned;  probably  because  it  came  to 
be  perceived  that  the  synods  had  committed  no  offence. 

A  glance  at  the  Plan  of  Union,  is  enough  to  convince  us  that  the 
disorder  had  come  in  with  the  sanction  of  the  Assembly  itself.  The 
first  article  directed  missionaries,  (the  word  is  significant,)  to  the 
new  settlements,  to  promote  a  good  understanding  betwixt  the 
kindred  sects.     The  second  and  third  permitted  a  Presbyterian  con- 


258  APPENDIX. 

gregation  to  settle  a  Congregational  minister,  or  a  Presbyterian 
minister  to  be  settled  by  a  Congregational  church !  but  these  provided 
for  no  recognition  of  the  people  in  charge  as  a  part  of  the  Presby- 
terian body;  at  least  they  gave  them  no  representation  in  its  gov- 
ernment. But  the  fourth  allowed  a  mixed  congregation  to  settle  a 
minister  of  either  denomination ;  and  it  committed  the  government 
of  it  to  a  standing  committee,  but  with  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  body 
of  male  communicants,  if  tlie  appellant  were  a  Congregationalist,  or 
to  the  presbytery  if  he  were  a  Presbyterian,  l^ow  it  is  evident  the 
Assembly  designed  that  every  such  congregation  should  belong  to  a 
presbytery,  as  an  integrant  part  of  it;  for  if  its  minister  were  a  Con- 
gregationalist, in  no  way  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  refer  the  appellate  jurisdiction  to  any  presby- 
tery in  particular.  This  alone  would  show,  that  it  was  designed  to 
place  such  a  congregation  in  ecclesiastical  connexion  with  the  presby- 
tery of  the  district ;  but  this  is  not  all.  It  was  expressly  provided, 
in  conclusion,  that  if  the  "  said  standing  committee  of  any  church, 
shall  depute  one  of  themselves  to  attend  the  presbytery,  he  may  have 
the  same  right  to  sit  and  act  in  the  presbytery  as  a  ruling  elder  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church."  For  what  purpose,  if  the  congregation 
Were  not  ia  Presbyterial  fellowship  ? 

It  is  said  that  this  jus  represent ationis  was  predicated  of  the  ap- 
peal precedently  mentioned ;  and  that  the  exercise  of  it  was  to  be 
restrained  to  the  trial  of  it.  The  words,  however,  were  predicated 
without  restriction;  and  an  implied  limitation  of  their  meaning, 
would  impute  to  the  Assembly  the  injustice  of  allowing  a  party  to 
sit  in  his  owncawse,  by  introducing  into  the  composition  of  the  appel- 
late court,  a  part  of  the  subordinate  one.  That  such  an  implication 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  temper  displayed  by  the  Assembly 
on  other  occasions,  is  proved  by  the  order  which  it  took  as  early  as 
1791,  in  the  case  of  an  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  of  Phil- 
adelphia, whose  members  it  prevented  from  voting  on  the  question, 
(Assembly's  Digest,  p.  332,)  as  well  as  by  its  general  provision,  that 
"  members  of  a  judicatory  may  not  vote  in  the  superior  judicatory  on 
a  question  of  approving  or  disapproving  their  records."  (Id.  pp.  333.) 

Tlie  principle  has  since  become  a  rule  of  the  constitution,  as  appears 
by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  chap.  vii.  sec.  3,  paragraph  12.  As  the 
representatives  of  those  anomalous  congregations,  therefore,  could  not 
sit  in  judgment  on  their  own  controversies,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  it 
was  intended  they  should  be  represented  generally,  else  they  would 
not  be  represented  at  all  in  the  councils  of  the  church,  by  those  who 
might  not  be  Presbyterians ;  and  that  to  effect  it,  the  principle  of 


APPENDIX.  259 

Presbyterial  ordination  was  to  be  relaxed,  as  regards  both  the  minis- 
try and  eldership  ;  and  it  is  equally  clear,  that  had  the  synods  been 
cited  to  answer  for  the  consequent  relaxation  as  an  offence,  they 
might  have  triumphantly  appeared  at  the  bar  of  the  Assembly  with 
the  Plan  of  Union  in  their  hand.  That  body,  however,  resorted  to 
the  only  constitutional  remedy  in  its  power ;  it  fell  back,  so  to  speak, 
on  its  legislative  jurisdiction,  in  the  exercise  of  which,  the  synods 
were  competently  represented,  and  heard  by  their  commissioners. 

Now  the  apparent  injustice  of  the  measure  arises  from  the  contem- 
plation of  it  as  a  judicial  sentence  pronounced  against  parties  who 
were  neither  cited  nor  heard ;  which  it  evidently  was  not.  Even  as 
a  legislative  act,  it  may  have  been  a  hard  one,  though  certainly  con- 
stitutional, and  strictly  j  ust.  It  was  impossible  to  eradicate  the  dis- 
order by  any  thing  less  than  a  dissolution  of  those  bodies  with  whose 
existence  its  roots  were  so  intertwined  as  to  be  inseparable  from  it, 
leaving  their  elements  to  form  new  and  less  heterogeneous  combina- 
tions. Though  deprived  of  Presbyterial  organization,  the  Presby- 
terian parts  were  not  excluded  from  the  church,  provision  being 
made  for  them,  by  allowing  them  to  attach  themselves  to  the  nearest 
presbytery. 

It  is  said  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  the  fact  that 
the  exscinded  synods  had  actually  been  constituted  on  the  Plan  of 
Union,  in  order  to  have  given  the  Assembly  even  legislative  juris- 
diction. The  testimony  of  the  Rev,  Mr.  Squier,  however,  shows  that 
in  some  of  the  three  which  were  within  the  State  of  'New  York,  con- 
gregations were  sometimes  constituted  without  elders^;  and  the  Synod 
of  the  Western  Reserve,  when  charged  with  delinquency  on  that 
head,  instead  of  denying  the  fact,  promptly  pointed  to  the  Plan  of 
Union  for  its  justification.  But  what  matters  it  whether  the  fact 
were  actually  what  the  Assembly  supposed  it  to  be  ?  If  that  body 
proceeded  in  good  faith,  the  validity  of  its  enactment  cannot  depend 
on  the  justness  of  its  conclusion.  "We  have,  as  already  remarked,  no 
authority  to  rejudge  its  judgments,  on  their  merits;  and  this  princi- 
ple was  asserted  with  conclusive  force  by  the  presiding  judge  who 
tried  the  cause.  Upon  an  objection  made  to  an  inquiry  into  the 
composition  of  the  Presbytery  of  Medina,  it  was  ruled  that  "with 
the  reasons  for  the  proceedings  of  1837,  (the  act  of  excision,)  we  have 
nothing  to  do.  "We  are  to  determine  only  what  was  done  :  the  rea- 
sons of  those  who  did  it  are  immaterial.  If  the  acts  complained  of 
were  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Assembly,  their  decision  must  be 
final,  though  they  decided  wrong."  This  was  predicated  of  judicial 
jurisdiction,  but  the  principle  is  necessarily  as  applicable  to  jurisdic- 


260  APPENDIX. 

tioB  for  purposes  of  legislation.  I  cite  the  passage,  however,  to  show 
that  after  a  successful  resistance  to  the  introduction  of  evidence  of 
the  fact,  it  lies  not  with  the  relators  to  allege  the  want  of  it. 

If  then  the  synods  in  question  were  constitutionally  dissolved,  the 
presbyteries  of  which  they  had  been  composed,  were,  at  least,  for 
purposes  of  representation,  dissolved  along  with  them  ;  for  no  presby- 
tery can  be  in  connexion  with  the  General  Assembly,  unless  it  be  at 
the  same  time  subordinate  to  a  synod  also  in  connexion  with  it,  be- 
cause an  appeal  from  its  judgment  can  reach  the  tribunal  of  the  last 
resort  only  through  that  channel.  It  is  immaterial  that  the  presby- 
teries are  the  electors ;  a  synod  is  a  part  of  the  machinery  which  is 
indispensable  to  the  existence  of  every  branch  of  the  church.  It  ap- 
pears, therefore,  that  the  commissioners  from  the  exscinded  synods, 
were  not  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Assembly,  and  that  their  names 
were  properly  excluded  from  the  roll. 

The  inquiry  might  be  rested  here  ;  for  if  there  were  no  color  of 
right  in  them,  there  was  no  color  of  right  in  the  adversary  proceed- 
ings which  were  founded  on  their  exclusion.  But  even  if  their  title 
were  clear,  the  refusal  of  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  modera- 
tor, would  be  no  ground  for  the  degradation  of  the  officer  at  the  call 
of  a  minority;  nor  could  it  impose  on  the  majority  an  obligation  to 
vote  on  a  question  put  unofficially,  and  out  of  the  usual  course.  To 
all  questions  put  by  the  established  organ,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  mem- 
ber to  respond,  or  be  counted  with  the  greater  number,  because  he 
is  supposed  to  have  assented  beforehand  to  the  result  of  the  process 
pre-established  to  ascertain  the  general  will ;  but  the  rule  of  implied 
assent  is  certainly  inapplicable  to  a  measure  which,  when  justifiable 
even  by  extreme  necessity,  is  essentially  revolutionary,  and  based 
on  no  pre-established  process  of  ascertainment  whatever. 

To  apply  it  to  an  extreme  case  of  inorganic  action,  as  was  done 
here,  might  work  the  degradation  of  any  presiding  officer  in  our  legis- 
lative halls,  by  the  motion  and  actual  vote  of  a  single  member,  sus- 
tained by  the  constructive  votes  of  all  the  rest ;  and  though  such  an 
enterprise  may  never  be  attempted,  it  shows  the  danger  of  resorting 
to  a  conventional  rule,  when  the  body  is  to  be  resolved  into  its  origi- 
nal elements,  and  its  rules  and  conventions  to  be  superseded,  by  the 
very  motion.  For  this  reason,  the  choice  of  a  moderator  to  supplant 
the  officer  in  the  chair,  even  if  he  were  removable  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  commissioners,  would  seem  to  have  been  unconstitutional. 

But  he  was  not  removable  by  them,  because  he  had  not  derived 
his  office  from  them  ;  nor  was  he  answerable  to  them  for  the  use  of 
his  power.     He  was  not  their  moderator.     He  was  the  mechanical  in- 


APPENDIX.  261 

BtrutDent  of  their  organization  ;  and  till  tliat  was  accomplished,  they 
were  subject  to  his  rule — not  he  to  theirs.  They  were  chosen  by  the 
authority  of  his  mandate,  and  with  the  power  of  self-organization, 
only  in  the  event  of  his  absence  at  the  opening  of  the  session.  Cor- 
porally present,  but  refusing  to  perform  his  function,  he  might  be 
deemed  constructively  absent,  for  constitutional  purposes,  insomuch 
that  the  commissioners  might  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a  substitute 
without  him  ;  but  not  if  he  had  entered  on  the  performance  of  his 
task ;  and  the  reason  is  that  the  decision  of  such  questions  as  were 
prematurely  pressed  here,  is  proper  for  the  decision  of  the  body  when 
prepared  for  organic  action,  which  it  cannot  be  before  it  is  fully  constitu- 
ted and  under  the  presidency  of  its  own  moderator  ;  the  moderator  of 
the  preceding  session  being  functus  officio.  There  can  be  no  occasion 
for  its  action  sooner;  for  though  the  commissioners  are  necessarily 
called  upon  to  vote  for  their  moderator,  their  action  is  not  organic, 
but  individual.  Dr.  Mason's  motion  and  appeal,  though  the  clerks 
had  reported  the  roll,  were  premature  ;  for  though  it  is  declared  in 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Form  of  Government,  that  no  commission- 
er shall  deliberate  or  vote  before  his  name  shall  have  been  enrolled, 
it  follows  not  that  the  capacity,  consummated  by  enrollment,  was  ex- 
pected to  be  exercised  during  any  part  of  the  process  of  organization, 
but  the  choice  of  a  moderator ;  and  moreover,  the  provision  may  have 
been  intended  for  the  case  of  a  commissioner  appearing  for  the  first 
time,  when  the  house  was  constituted. 

Many  instances  may  doubtless  be  found  among  the  minutes,  of  mo- 
tions entertained  previously,,  for  our  public  bodies,  whether  legisla- 
tive or  judical,  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  are  too  prone  to  forget  the 
golden  precept — "Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order." 
But  these  are  merely  instances  of  irregularity  which  have  passed  sub 
silejitio,  and  which  cannot  change  a  rule  of  positive  enactment.  It 
seems,  then,  that  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  moderator  did  not 
lie ;  and  that  he  incurred  no  penalty  by  the  disallowance  of  it.  The 
title  of  the  exscinded  commissioners  could  be  determined  only  by  the 
action  of  the  house,  which  could  not  be  had  before  its  organization 
was  complete ;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  he  was  bound,  as  the  execu- 
tive instrument  of  the  preceding  Assembly,  to  put  its  ordinance  into 
execution  :  for  to  the  actual  Assembly,  and  not  to  the  moderator  of 
the  preceding  one,  it  belonged  to  repeal  it. 

It  would  be  decisive,  however,  that  the  motion,  as  it  was  proposed, 
purported  not  to  be  in  fact  a  question  of  degradation  for  the  disal- 
lowance of  an  appeal,  but  one  of  new  and  independent  organization. 
It  was  ostensibly,  as  well  as  actually,  a  measure  of  transcendental 


262  APPENDIX. 

power,  ■whose  purpose  was  to  treat  the  ordinance  of  the  preceding  As- 
sembly as  a  nullity,  and  its  moderator  as  a  nonentity.  It  had  been 
prepared  for  the  event  avowedly  before  the  meeting.  The  witnesses 
concur  that  it  was  propounded  as  a  measure  of  original  organization 
transcending  the  customary  order ;  and  not  as  a  recourse  to  the  ultima 
ratio  for  a  specific  violation  of  it.  The  ground  of  the  motion,  as  it 
was  opened  by  the  mover,  was  not  the  disallowance  of  an  appeal, 
which  alone  could  afford  a  pretext  of  forfeitiire,  but  the  fact  of  exclu- 
sion. To  affect  silent  members  with  an  implication  of  assent,  however, 
the  ground  of  the  motion  and  nature  of  the  question  must  be  so  ex- 
plicitly put  before  them  as  to  prevent  misconception  or  mistake  ;  and 
the  remarks  that  heralded  the  question  in  this  instance,  pointed  at, 
not  a  removal  of  the  presiding  incumbent,  but  a  separate  organization 
to  be  accomplished  with  the  least  practicable  interruption  of  the  busi- 
ness in  hand ;  and  if  they  indicated  anything  else,  they  were  decep- 
tive. The  measure  was  proposed  not  as  that  of  the  body,  but  as  the 
measure  of  a  party  ;  and  the  cause  assigned  for  not  having  proposed 
it  elsewhere,  was  that  individuals  of  the  party  had  been  instructed  by 
counsel  that  the  purpose  of  it  could  not  be  legally  accomplished  in. 
any  other  place.  No  witness  speaks  of  a  motion  to  degrade  ;  and  the 
rapidity  of  the  process  by  which  the  choice  of  a  substitute,  not  a  suc- 
cessor, was  affected,  left  no  space  for  reflection  or  debate.  Now,  be- 
fore the  passive  commsssioners  could  be  affected  by  acquiescence  im- 
plied from  their  silence,  it  ought  to  have  appeared  that  they  were  ap  - 
prised  of  what  was  going  on ;  but  it  appears  that  even  an  attentive 
ear  witness  was  unable  to  understand  what  was  done.  The  whole 
scene  was  one  of  unprecedented  haste,  insomuch  that  it  is  still  a  matter 
of  doubt  how  the  questions  were  put.  Now,  though  these  facts  were 
fairly  put  to  the  jury,  it  is  impossible  not  to  see,  that  the  verdict  is, 
in  this  respect,  manifestly  against  the  current  of  the  evidence. 

Other  corroborative  views  have  been  suggested ;  but  it  is  difficult 
to  compress  a  decision  of  the  leading  points  in  this  case  into  the  old 
fashioned  limits  of  a  judical  opinion.  The  preceding  observations^ 
however,  are  deemed  enough  to  show  the  grounds  on  which  we  hold 
that  the  Assembly  which  met  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  was  not 
the  legitimate  successor  of  the  Assembly  of  1837  ;  and  that  the  defend- 
ants are  not  guilty  of  the  usurpation  with  which  they  are  charged.    \ 

Rule  for  a  new  trial  made  absolute. 

From  this  opinion  Judge  Rogers  dbsented.  His  dissent  is  in  these 
words,  viz. 

Judge  Rogep^. — After  the  patient  and  impartial  investigation,  by 
me,  of  this  cause,  at  Nisi  Prius,  and  in  bank,  I  have  nothing  at  this 


APPENDIX.  263 

time  to  add,  except  that  my  opinion  remains  unchanged  on  all  the 
points  ruled  at  the  trial.  This  explanation  is  deemed  requisite,  in  jus- 
tice to  myself,  and  because  it  has  become  necessary  (in  a  case,  in  some 
respects,  without  precedent,  and  presenting  some  extraordinary  fea- 
tures) to  prevent  misapprehension  and  misrepresentation. 


[C] 

OPINION  OF  CHANCELLOR  KENT  ON  THE  ACTS 
OF  EXCISION. 

The  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States,  held  at  Philadelphia  in  May  last,  have 
been  submitted  to  me  for  my  professional  opinion,  respecting  the  va- 
lidity and  effect  of  certain  Resolutions  of  the  Assembly,  in  which  they 
abrogate  the  Plan  of  Union  made  in  ISOl  with  the  General  Association 
of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  and  also  declare  that  the  Synods  of  the 
Western  Reserve,  and  of  Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee  were  no  longer  a 
part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Without  assuming  to  meddle  with  any  questions  exclusively  eccle- 
siastical, or  of  a  theological  nature,  I  have  not  felt  myself  at  liberty 
to  withhold  my  opinion  from  the  reverend  gentlemen  who  have  ap- 
plied for  it;  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  proceeding's  alluded  to  may  be 
considered  as  affecting  rights  that  might,  directly  or  indirectly ,  be  dis- 
cussed and  protected  in  a  court  of  justice. 

The  two  points  to  be  considered  are, 

1.  The  character  and  effect  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl,  and  of 
its  abrogation  in  1837. 

2.  The  cutting  off  the  four  Synods  above  mentioned  from  their  con- 
nection with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

(1.)  It  appears  that  in  1792  the  Convention  of  the  Committees  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut,  agreed  to  a  Standing  Committee  of  Corres- 
pondence for  each  body,  to  communicate  with  each  other  whatever 
might  be  mutually  useful  to  the  churches  under  their  care ;  and  to  pro- 
mote this  plan  of  intercourse,  delegates  were  to  have  a  right  to  sit  in 
each  other's  general  meetings.     The  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 


264  APPENDIX. 

byterian  Church  and  the  General  Association  of  Connecticnt  respec- 
tively, approved  of  this  plan,  and  they  further  mutually  agreed,  in 
1794,  that  delegates  from  the  Assembly  to  the  Association  and  from 
the  Association  to  the  Assembly  should  be  received,  not  only  to  sit 
and  consult  in  their  respective  bodies,  but  vote  upon  all  questions  to 
be  determined  by  either  house.  Then  followed  the  more  formal  and 
specific  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  and  by  the  General  Association  of  the  State 
of  Connecticut.  This  Plan  of  Union,  or  government  for  the  mutual 
harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches  in  the  new  settlements,  was  agreed  to  and  ratified  equally 
by  the  General  Assembly  and  the  General  Association,  and  was  car- 
ried into  operation  with  great  success,  and  with  the  continued  appro- 
bation of  the  Presbyteries  and  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  down  to  its  final  abrogation  in  1537. 

This  solemn  compact  was  doubtless  made  in  good  faith,  and  from 
•worthy  considerations,  and  for  beneficial  ends,  and  it  was  obligatory 
upon  each  body  in  point  of  conscience,  if  not  in  point  of  law.  The 
contracting  parties  were  competent  to  make  it.  The  object  was 
within  the  spirit  of  both  ecclesiastical  associations,  for  both  had  but 
one  end,  the  propagation,  growth  and  maintenance  of  the  Gospel,  as 
taught  in  their  respective  churches.  The  constitutions  of  these  res- 
pective associations  ought  to  be  construed  most  liberally  and  be- 
nignly when  such  pious  and  useful  purposes  were  intended  to  be  pro- 
moted. I  have  no  idea  that  we  ought  to  apply  the  political  doctrine 
of  a  strict,  dry,  technical  construction  to  the  constitutions  of  religious 
associations,  and  especially  when  all  the  parties  unite  in  measures  of 
transcendent  interest,  and  calculated  to  promote  the  great  object  of 
all  their  associations,  and  meetings,  and  etforts;  nor  do  I  think  that 
either  of  the  contracting  parties  was  at  liberty  to  disavow  and  re- 
nounce the  compact  at  pleasure,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  some  new  occurrence  that  would  render  the  further 
operation  of  the  union  useless,  or  destructive,  or  greatly  injurious  to 
the  ends  in  view ;  nor  even  in  that  case,  without  first  applying  for 
Buch  consent  and  stating  the  reasons  of  the  application.  If  the  case 
could  be  brought  within  the  cognizance  of  a  court  of  equity,  (and  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  it  cannot)  it  is  not  probable  that  the  court  would  dis- 
charge the  parties  from  their  contract,  unless  upon  these  grounds. 

The  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl  was  not  submitted  in  due  form  to  the  re- 
spective presbyteries  for  their  sanction.  The  General  Assembly  as- 
eumed  the  power  and  the  right  to  agree  to  it  absolutely  and  finally, 


APPENDIX.  265 

and  it  met  with  universal  assent  by  all  the  subordinate  councils  of 
that  church.  There  was  no  prohibitory  clause  in  the  Presbyterian 
constitution  against  such  a  proceeding  by  the  General  Assembly,  and 
the  reception  of  that  Plan  of  Union  by  all  the  presbyteries,  and  by 
their  delegates  in  all  subsequent  meetings  of  the  General  Assembly, 
bound  all  the  members.  It  may  be  taken,  I  presume,  for  a  fact,  that 
every  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  knew  of  that  Plan  of  Union, 
and  uniformly  acquiesced  in  it,  and  acted  upon  it,  whenever  the  occa- 
sion required  it.  Such  general  and  uniform  assent  or  acquiescence, 
when  given  understandingly  and  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact,  is 
conclusive,  and  cannot  be  gainsayed.  If  a  person  in  any  transaction 
will  not  speak  or  object  when  he  has  a  fair  opportunity,  but  suffers 
the  proceeding  to  go  on,  and  acts  to  be  done  under  his  eye  and  under 
the  impression  of  his  assent,  the  law  will  hold  him  to  that  presumed 
assent.  His  conscience  is  bound  by  such  an  equitable  estoppel.  The 
axioms  of  law  bearing  on  this  point  are  founded  in  sound  ethics,  in 
solid  wisdom,  and  in  the  approbation  of  ages — Qui  facet,  consentire  vi- 
detur,  Qui  potest,  et  debet  vetare,  juhet. 

It  is  farther  to  be  observed,  that  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  underwent  subsequent  revisals  and  amendments,  and  no 
abjection  was  taken  to  the  formation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  and  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly.  It  is  not  easy  to  im- 
agine the  case  of  any  measure  or  covenant  which  has  been  better  sus- 
tained on  the  ground  of  authority,  assent  and  ratification,  for  thirty- 
six  years,  by  all  parties  concerned.  Plans  of  union  were  successively 
formed  by  the  General  Assembly  with  other  Christian  denominations 
of  analogous  character,  as,  for  instance,  with  the  Congregational  asso- 
ciations in  Vermont,  N^  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  and  with  the 
Reformed  Dutch  and  Scots  churches.  They  were  all  liable  to  the 
same  objection,  and  yet  the  General  Assembly  in  their  Resolution  de- 
signate the  Act  of  Union  of  ISOL  "an  unconstitutional  act." 

The  objection  that  the  General  Association  of  the  State  of  Connec- 
ticut had  no  power  to  enter  into  an  agreement  to  regulate  the  churches 
"  not  within  her  limits,"  does  not  strike  me  as  being  of  any  force.  The 
object  of  the  Plan  of  Union  was  not  local,  and  the  Connecticut  Asso- 
ciation had  a  right  to  act  with  missionary  views,  and  to  make  contracts 
to  be  executed  beyond  the  limits  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  their 
State.  Every  individual  has  that  power.  The  contract  in  question 
was  formed  in  reference  to  new  settlements  in  the  western  parts  of 
New  York,  Ohio,  and  the  far  West,  and  which  were  composed  of  in- 
habitants both  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  denomina- 


266  APPENDIX. 

tions,  and  which  were  equally  objects  of  the  paternal  care  and  solici- 
tude of  both  the  associations.  The  Connecticut  Association  assumed 
to  act  as  agent  for  the  infant  churches  and  their  distressed  members 
in  the  West.  The  General  Assembly  treated  with  it  in  the  character 
of  a  body  assuming  such  agency,  and  through  that  agency  they  dealt 
with  and  recognized  all  the  churches  formed  and  organized  upon  the 
Plan  of  the  Union,  No  persons,  either  as  members  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian or  Congregational  bodies,  ever  questioned  the  authority  of  the 
Connecticut  Association  to  enter  into  the  compact  on  their  behalf.  All 
parties,  individually  and  collectively,  acted  knowingly  on  this  subject, 
and  none  are  now  at  liberty,  on  principles  of  law  and  equity,  to  deny 
the  validity  of  acts  founded  on  such  agency.  Omnis  ratihahites  man- 
dato  cequi  paratur.  Qui  non prohibei  pro  se  intervenire,  mandare  cre- 
ditur.  The  courts  of  justice  are  constantly  adopting  and  applying 
these  maxims  of  law  and  of  common  sense  to  sustain  the  contracts  of 
individuals,  and  prevent  fraud  and  injustice.  The  General  Assembly 
in  1801  must  have  known  what  was  the  Constitution  and  what  were 
the  powers  of  the  General  Association  of  Connecticut,  and  the  want  of 
authority  to  make  the  contract  and  to  carry  it  into  effect  was  either 
not  perceived  or  not  regarded,  either  at  the  time,  or  through  the  long 
subsequent  period  in  which  it  was  in  active  operation.  They  are  es- 
topped now  from  making  such  a  denial.  They  dealt  with  the  Connec- 
ticut Association  as  a  competent  body  to  be  so  dealt  with,  and  the 
Connecticut  Association  have  never  set  up  a  want  of  power  on  their 
part.  There  is  no  well-founded  pretence  for  the  objection,  and  if  there 
had  been  in  the  first  instance,  yet  good  faith  and  mutual  confidence 
could  not  be  upheld  in  the  dealings  and  intercourse  of  mankind,  if 
the  doctrine  of  estoppels  did  not  apply,  in  conscience  as  well  as  in  law, 
to  bar  such  an  objection,  under  all  the  circumstances,  at  this  late  day. 
But  I  am  by  no  means  of  the  opinion  that  the  Presbyterian  churches 
were  to  be  always  bound  by  such  agreements,  when  they  are  found  to 
be  ultimately  injurious.  The  mode  of  relief  has  already  been  alluded 
to.  The  agreement  may  be  rescinded  by  mutual  assent,  and  that  as- 
sent could  not  decently  be  withheld  on  due  notice  and  kind  and  rea- 
sonable application  by  the  dissatisfied  party.  This  result  would  be 
almost  inevitable  when  we  consider  that  here  are  no  stern  and  uncom- 
promising civil  rights  and  self-interests  in  the  way,  and  that  the  whole 
object  of  the  compact  was  Christian  benovolence  ard  the  harmony 
and  prosperity  of  the  churches  in  the  Western  Districts,  The  terms 
of  the  proposition  for  abrogating  the  Union,  brought  forward  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  1835,  were  mild  and  just,  and  such  as  it  would 


APPENDIX.  267 

have  been  well  to  have  followed  in  1887.  If  such  an  application 
should  not  be  successful,  I  have  no  doubt  that  a  peremptory  renuncia- 
tion of  the  Union  for  reasonable  cause,  would  be  justified  even  in  the 
purview  of  a  court  of  equity. 

(2.)  The  second,  and  the  still  graver  question,  arises  on  the  Resolu- 
tion of  the  General  Assembly  to  sever  from  the  Presbyterian  Church 
four  Synods,  consisting  of  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve,  and  the 
Synods  of  Oneida,  Geneva  and  Genesee. 

It  appears  to  me  to  be  a  very  clear  proposition,  that  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl  by  the  Resolution  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  1S37,  could  not  affect  in  any  degree  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  the  churches,  presbyteries  and  synods  which  had  been  formed, 
and  organized,  and  governed,  more  or  less,  under  the  influence  and 
operation  of  that  compact.  The  Resolution  could  not  have  any  re- 
troactive operation.  It  could  not  either  annul  or  impair  acts  rightfully 
done,  in  good  faith,  under  its  authority.  This  is  a  principle  of  uni- 
versal jurisprudence.  The  churches  formed  in  the  western  part  of 
New  York  and  in  Ohio,  and  organized  under  the  Plan  of  Union  of 
1801,  are  entitled  to  be  recognized  and  protected  by  the  General  As- 
sembly, in  their  present  modified  state,  so  long  as  they  should  choose 
to  continue  it,  without  any  further  approximation  to  the  Presbyterian 
model. 

There  is  still  another  insuperable  objection  to  the  precipitate  act 
of  rescinding  the  connection  between  the  General  Assembly  and  the 
synods  above  mentioned,  inasmuch  as  charges  were  made  against 
them  seriously  affecting  the  doctrine,  discipline,  and  manners  of  the 
churches  under  their  care,  and  those  synods,  presbyteries  and  churches 
had  no  due  notice,  by  regular  process,  of  the  accusations,  nor  any  op- 
portunity to  meet  and  answer  them.  This  proceeding  was  contrary 
to  all  established  principles  of  municipal  justice,  and  would  of  itself, 
if  there  were  no  other  objections,  render  the  expulsion  void,  and  leave 
the  Synods,  notwithstanding  the  Resolution,  component  parts  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  entitled,  of  right,  to 
their  future  representation  in  the  General  Assembly,  equally  as  if  no 
such  Resolution  had  passed. 

There  is  another  objection  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Synods  of  Utica, 
Geneva  and  Genesee,  which  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the 
General  Assembly  when  they  passed  their  Resolution,  for  they  appear 
to  have  considered  the  expulsion  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the 
abrogation  of  the  Act  of  Union  of  ISO  I.  Nothing  could  be  more  er- 
roneous than  this  idea,  even  if  the  premises  were  true ;  for  the  repeal 
of  a  grant  or  the  recall  of  a  power,  will  not  and  cannot  invalidate  acts 


268  APPENDIX. 

done  and  rights  acquired  under  it,  provided  the  grant  or  power  did 
not  originate  in  fraud.  Nor  could  any  thing  be  more  mischievous  than 
the  principle  assumed  in  the  Resolution,  if  carried  out  to  its  practical 
consequences.  But  it  appears  that  the  "mixed  churches"  in  the  three 
Synods  in  Western  New  York  were  not  formed  on  the  plan  of  the 
union  of  1801,  but  essentially  on  that  of  ISOS,  and  which  received  the 
sanction  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  same  year.  If  this  be  the 
fact,  (and  it  appears  to  be  so  from  the  documents  before  me)  then  the 
Resolution  of  1S37  was,  upon  any  view  of  the  subject,  inoperative  as 
to  those  Synods,  ani  had  no  application  to  them. 

These  are,  briefly,  the  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  "  That  the  Synods  of 
Utica,  Geneva  and  Genesee,  and  of  the  Western  Reserve,  were  out  of 
the  ecclesiastical  connection  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  was  irregu- 
lar, illegal  and  void.  It  is  not  my  intention,  nor  would  it  become  me 
to  speak  otherwise  than  with  great  respect  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States,  and  I  have  not  been 
inclined  to  indulge  in  any  observations  not  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  clear  and  precise  expression  of  my  opinion  on  the  questions  sub- 
mitted. My  wish  is,  and  my  advice  would  be,  (if  the  advice  of  a 
mere  private  layman,  unconnected  with  the  church,  could  be  of  any 
value,  and  given  without  offence),  that  the  next  General  Assembly, 
calmly,  and  in  the  f?pirit  of  conciliation,  review  their  former  proceed- 
ings, now  so  much  complained  of.  In  that  case  I  think  they  would 
be  led  to  retract  their  obnoxious  resolutions,  and  seek  a  more  concilia- 
tory and  suitable  way  to  rid  themselves  of  the  future  operation  of  the 
Plan  of  Union  of  1801  ;  and  that  they  would  also,  and  as  of  course, 
recognize  the  four  excluded  Synods  as  parts  and  parcel  of  their  own 
Association,  and  endeavor  by  fraternal  kindness  and  wisdom,  to  pro- 
mote harmony,  not  only  with  those  Synods,  but  among  all  the  wide- 
spread members  of  their  great  and  interesting  national  association. 
In  ray  humble  opinion,  the  reputation  and  welfare  of  the  Presbyte- 
lian  Church  is  deeply  concerned  in  such  a  course. 

JAMES  KENT. 
New  YorJc,  September  8,  1S37. 


'.m*3Sl£^^ 


APPENDIX.  269 

[D-J 
OPINION  OF  GEORGE  WOOD,  ESQ. 

Mr  opinion  has  been  requested  upon  the  proceedings  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  their  late  session,  par- 
ticularly the  Resolutions  passed  by  them  abrogating  the  Plan  of  Union 
with  Congregational  churches,  exscinding  the  Synod  of  the  "Western  Re- 
serve, and  the  three  Synods  of  Utica,  Genesee  and  Geneva,  and  dis- 
solving the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

It  may  be  proper  to  consider  in  the  first  place,  how  far  and  in  what 
way  the  legality  of  those  proceedings  as  they  touch  the  interests  of 
the  parties  concerned,  may  be  inquired  into  before  the  judicial  tribu- 
nals of  the  country.  There  are  two  modes  in  which  the  proceedings 
of  inferior  judicatories  and  institutions  may  be  reviewed  in  courts  of 
justice,  viz :  First,  directly,  by  a  direct  review  or  appeal,  certiorari 
mandamus,  or  some  other  process,  in  which  the  proceedings  of  the  in- 
ferior judicatory  may  be  either  revised  or  affirmed  in  whole  or  in 
part.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  such  a  jurisdiction  or  con- 
trol over  ecclesiastical  institutions  does  not  belong  to  the  courts  of  this 
country. 

The  second  mode  is  collateral,  or  incidental ;  and  in  this  way 
courts  of  justice  have  sometimes  occasion  to  inquire  into  the  proceed- 
ings of  our  ecclesiastical  tribunals.  This,  however,  can  only  be  done 
when  such  inquiries  become  necessary  to  settle  questions  of  property 
or  civil  rights,  and  with  a  view  to  adjust  and  determine  such  contro- 
versies. It  is  in  this  point  of  view  only  that  I  shall  examine  this  sub- 
ject, and  it  is  only  in  this  point  of  view  that  it  would  be  proper  for 
me  in  my  professional  capacity  to  undertake  to  give  an  opinion  on  the 
case. 

The  first  topic  I  propose  to  consider  is  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  1801. 

I  do  not  think  that  this  Plan  of  Union  formed,  or  was  the  result  of 
a  compact  between  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Association  of  Con- 
necticut, so  as  to  render  it  obligatory  upon  the  General  Assembly  to 
carry  into  effect  the  measure,  or  to  continue  its  operation  any  longer 
than  they  should  deem  proper.  It  was  a  measure  originating  with 
and  belonging  exclusively  to  the  General  Assembly. 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  assent  of  the  Association  to  the 
adoption  by  the  Assembly  of  this  Plan  was  necessary.  The  Congre- 
gational iats  to  be  affected  by  this  Plan  were  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of 

12 


270  APPENDIX. 

that  Association  and  beyond  their  control,  but  Ihey  no  doubt  felt 
themselves  under  a  moral  influence  which  rendered  it  a  matter  of  del- 
icacy and  expediency  on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly  to  obtain 
the  assent  of  that  Association, 

But  supposing  the  assent  of  the  Association  to  have  been  indispen- 
sable when  it  was  given,  they  bad  nothing  further  to  do  with  the 
Plan.  It  then  became  the  measure  of  the  General  Assembly,  to  be 
dropped,  or  acted  upon,  or  modified,  as  they  should  deem  advisable. 

In  order  to  illustrate  this  case,  let  us  suppose  that  the  State  of  New 
Jersey  should  resolve  to  construct  a  canal,  to  be  fed  by  the  waters  of 
the  Hudson,  at  a  point  where  that  river  is  the  common  property  of 
the  two  States,  and  New  Jersey  should  apply  for  the  assent  of  the 
Legislature  of  New  York,  as  a  precautionary  measure,  before  she 
commenced  the  work.  Whenever  that  consent  should  be  given  the 
work  would  then  become  exclusively  a  New  Jersey  measure.  It 
could  not  be  pretended  that  it  was  the  offspring  of  a  compact  between 
the  two  States,  so  that  New  Jersey  could  be  said  to  construct  it  un- 
der a  compact,  and  to  be  bound  to  complete  it  and  continue  it  in  ope- 
ration by  virtue  of  such  compact.  She  could,  on  the  contrary,  aban- 
don the  work  whenever  she  should  think  proper  to  do  so. 

I  see  no  ground  for  the  supposition  that  this  Plan  of  Union  was  in 
Tiolation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church.  It  is  true  that  the  modes 
of  proceeding  in  those  churches  partly  Congregational  are  not  the 
same  as  in  the  churches  strictly  Presbyterian,  and  which  are  referred 
to  by  that  Constitution  in  prescribing  the  organization  and  discipline 
of  churches.  The  Constitution  provides  for  such  churches  alone; 
churches  which  form  essential  parts  of  the  Presbyterian  institutions. 

I  see  nothing  in  the  Constitution  which  prohibits  a  union  with  other 
denominations  of  Christians  in  a  modified  form.  The  usage  of  the 
General  Assembly  appears  fully  to  recognize  and  sanction  such  unions. 
Thus  by  an  arrangement  between  the  Assembly  and  the  Association 
of  Connecticut,  as  early  as  1794,  the  respective  delegates  from  each 
body  were  empowered  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  other  upon  all  questions 
decided  there.  A  similar  arrangement  in  1803  was  made  be  ween 
the  Assembly  and  the  Convention  of  Congregationalists  in  Vermont. 
An  arrangement  of  the  same  kind  was  formed  in  1810  with  the  Gen- 
eral Association  of  New  Hampshire.  In  1816  an  alteration  was 
made  by  which  the  New  Hampshire  Association  was  represented  by 
one  delegate  only  in  the  Assembly.  A  similar  arrangement  has  been 
also  made  with  the  Association  of  Massachusetts.  A  union  has  been 
formed  and  long  subsisting  between  the  Assembly  and  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Keformed  Dutch  Church,  by  which  delegates  from  the 


APPENDIX.  271 

latter  were  allo-\ved  to  sit  in  the  General  Assembly  and  participate 
in  their  deliberations.  A  more  intimate  union  has  been  formed  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian  and  the  Scotch  churches;  a  union  as  close  as 
that  of  the  Congregationalist  under  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801.  The 
Scotch  congregations  still  retaining  in  m^ny  respects  their  own  pecu- 
liar discipline  and  modes  of  worship. 

In  1808  a  modified  Plan  of  Union  and  correspondence  between  the 
Synod  of  Albany  and  the  Northern  Associate  Presbytery  and  the 
Middle  Association  in  the  Western  District,  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
was  sanctioned  by  a  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly.  It  cannot 
be  pretended  that  Churches,  Presbyteries,  or  Synods,  formed  under, 
or  growing  out  of  that  plan,  could  have  been  exscinded  by  the  General 
Assembly  as  a  consequence  resulting  from  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan 
of  Union,  inasmuch  as  that  Plan  of  Union  of  1808  is  not  abrogated,  or 
in  any  way  affected  by  any  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body. 

An  objection  has  been  made  that  this  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  ought 
to  have  been  submitted  by  the  Assembly  to  the  Presbyteries,  for  their 
inspection,  before  it  was  adopted.  I  see  nothing  in  the  constitution 
requiring  such  a  course  in  the  formation  of  these  Unions ;  nor  was 
such  a  course  pursued  in  establishing  the  various  unions  and  arrange- 
ments above  stated :  long-established  usage  must  be  considered  as  set- 
tling that  question.  An  acquiescence  in  the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl  by 
every  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  accompanied  by  concurrent 
usages  in  similar  cases,  would  be  received  by  any  court  of  justice  as 
plenary  evidence  of  its  sanction  and  its  validity.  Such  usage,  so  gen- 
eral and  uniform,  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that 
there  has  been  a  predominating  opinion  pervading  the  members  of 
that  Church,  that  th"fe  constitution  and  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  did  not  interfere  with  the  establishment  of  such 
Union,  although  established  by  the  General  Assembly  alone. 

This  Plan  of  Union  has  been  in  operation  for  thirty-six  years.  Dur- 
ing its  continuance,  in  1820  and  1821,  a  revised  constitution  was  pre- 
pared, similar  in  its  provisions,  so  far  as  they  appertain  to  this  subject, 
to  the  regulations  in  the  old  constitution  in  existence  at  the  time  this 
Union  was  formed.  Nowithstanding  all  this,  the  Plan  of  Union  con- 
tinued in  operation,  and  no  one  appears  to  have  dreamed  that  it  was 
unconstitutional.  It  is  difiieult  to  suppose  that  all  the  able  and  con- 
scientious men  who  have  been  upon  the  watch  to  guard  that  consti- 
tution could  have  sunk  into  a  profound  sleep  for  six  and  thirty  years. 

Long-established  usage  has  great  effect  in  settling  the  powers,  priv- 
ileges, and  duties  of  bodies  and  institutlomp,  and  in  raising  the  pre- 
sumption of  the  f  sient  to  measure?,  by  the  different  members  whose 


272  APPENDIX. 

assent  or  sanction  may  be  necessary.     12  Wheaton's  R.  79  ;  3  Mason, 
606  ;  12  Sergeant  &  Rawle,  256. 

I  am  therefore  of  opinion  that  this  Plan  of  Union  of  1801  was  not 
prohibited  by  the  constitution  of  this  church.  That  its  adoption  by 
the  General  Assembly  alone  was  in  order,  and  sanctioned  by  general 
usage — that  it  was  not  a  compact,  but  a  measure  originating  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  which  that  Church  was  at  liberty  to  abro- 
gate whenever  it  should  be  deemed  politic  and  expedient  to  do  so.  I 
am  of  opinion,  however,  that  it  was  a  transaction  of  a  high  moral 
character,  upon  which  churches  did  act,  and  form  a  connection  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and,  as  such,  it  ought  not  to  be  lightly  re- 
garded. 

I  do  not  think,  however,  that  this  abrogation  had  the  effect  to  des- 
troy the  connection  of  particular  congregations  which  had  been  ante- 
cedently attached  to  the  various  Presbyteries.  The  resolution  is 
evidently  prospective  in  its  character.  Such  resolutions  would  not 
be  construed  to  operate  retrospectively,  unless  the  intention  to  give 
them  that  effect  should  be  clear  and  decisive.  A  resolution  intended 
to  retroact  upon  churches  attached  under  the  Plan  ought  not  to  be 
passed  without  notice  or  hearing.  The  General  Assembly  in  1835 
had  correct  views  of  this  subject  when  they  declared  that  the  annul- 
ling of  the  Plan  of  Union  should  not,  in  any  way,  interfere  with  the 
existence  and  lawful  operation  of  churches  already  formed  on  this 
Plan. 

The  next  subject  to  be  considered  is  the  resolution  exscinding  the 
Synod  of  the  "Western  Reserve. 

The  power  to  cut  off  Synods  is  not  given  to  the  General  Assembly 
in  the  Constitution,  either  expressly  or  by  fair  implication.  The  power 
of  "bearing  testimony  against  error  in  doctrine,  or  immorality  in 
practice,  in  any  Church,  Presbytery,  or  Synod ;  "  "  of  suppressing 
sehismatical  contentions  and  disputations ;  and  in  general  of  recom- 
mending and  attempting  reformation  of  manners,"  &c.,  is  too  vague 
and  equivocal  to  confer  a  power  so  important  and  highly  condem- 
natory. It  might  as  well  be  pretended  that  the  power  in  the  Federal 
Constitution  "  to  pass  laws,  <fec.,  to  provide  for  common  defence  and 
the  general  welfare,"  conferred  upon  Congress  the  power  of  exscind- 
ing States.  If  they  possess  the  power,  they  must  derive  it  from  the 
great  fundamental  principles  of  government  and  discipline  prevailing 
in  that  Church,  or  from  general  and  established  usage.  Admitting, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  they  possess  the  power,  the  condemnation 
of  bodies  of  men  involving  the  innocent  with  the  guilty  is  an  exercise 
of  power  which  should  be  indulged  in  with  great  caution  and  del- 
icacy. 


APPENDIX.  273 

Supposing  the  power  to  exist,  I  do  not  think  it  was  duly  exercised 
in  the  present  case.  The  body  to  be  tried  and  condemned  should 
have  been  duly  summoned.  It  ought  to  have  received  a  reasonable 
notice,  and  had  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  defence.  A  condem- 
nation ex  p«rte,  without  reasonable  notice,  without  an  opportunity 
of  being  heard  in  defence,  is  as  repugnant  to  the  principles  and  prac- 
tice of  our  law  as  it  is  to  the  dictates  of  natural  justice,  A  reason- 
able notice  of  the  accusation,  with  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  in 
defence,  is  an  essential  element  in  the  administration  of  all  justice. 
Hence  the  proceedings  of  all  judicatories  condemning  individuals,  or 
adopting  measures  affecting  their  rights  without  reasonable  notice, 
are  treated  as  inoperative  and  void. — 11  Modern  R.,  225;  4  Con- 
necticut R,  386;  4  Burrows,  26S2  ;  4  Barnwell  &  Cresard,  442;  1 
Connecticut  R,,  219  ;  2  Strange,  1051. 

This  great  and  vital  principle,  so  essential  to  preserve  the  liberty  of 
the  citizen,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  in  this  church, 
in  adopting  their  rules  of  practice.  In  the  Digest,  page  323,  section 
5,  it  is  thus  laid  down  : — 

"It  was  resolved,  as  the  sense  of  this  house,  that  no  man,  or  body  of 
men,  agreeably  to  the  constitution  of  this  church,  ought  to  be  con- 
demned or  censured  without  having  notice  of  the  accusation  against 
him  or  thera,  and  notice  given  for  trial." — Vol.  i.  p.  77,  1793. 

I  perceive  that  it  is  alleged,  in  justification  of  this  proceeding,  that 
the  exscinding  of  the  Synod  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  abrogat- 
ing the  Plan  of  Union,  inasmuch  as  this  Synod  was  composed  in  part 
of  churches  formed  under  that  plan,  and  churches  which,  though 
strictly  Presbyterian  in  their  character,  were  origially  Congregational, 
and  brought  in  under  tliat  plan.  I  can  see  no  possible  objection  to 
the  latter  description  of  churches.  The  fact  that  they  may  have  been 
antecedently  Congregational  can,  I  think,  furnish  no  good,  ground  for 
cutting  them  off  from  their  religious  connection  in  any  church  acting 
upon  the  liberal  and  tolerant  principles  of  the  Christian  religion 
whose  object  it  is  to  promote  the  diffusion  of  piety,  and  to  bring  with- 
in its  influence  all  classes  and  conditions  of  men.  If  a  congregation 
at  present  Presbyterian,  were  composed  of  members  originally  infi- 
dels, that  circumstance  would  not  furnish  a  reason  for  cutting  them 
off  from  their  ecclesiastical  connection. 

The  exscinding  of  these  Synods,  supposing  it  to  be  an  invalid  act, 
will  not,  I  think,  have  the  effect  of  cutting  off  these  Congregational 
churches.     If  they  had   passed  a  resolution  exscinding  a  number  o* 
churches,  individually  including  these,  and  the   resolution  had   been 
good  as  respects  these,  but  inoperative  as  to  the  others,  it  would  have 


274  APPENDIX. 

had  the  effect  to  exscind  these  Congregational  churches.  But  a 
Synod  is  a  body  separate  and  distinct  from  the  churches,  and  different- 
ly organized.    If  the  blow  aimed  at  the  Synod  fails,  it  fails  altogether. 

I  cannot  consider  this  proceeding  as  merely  declaratory.  This 
Synod,  as  well  as  the  others,  appears  from  the  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  have  been  a  regularly  organized  branch  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  But  suppose  there  had  been  grounds  of  objection  to 
this  Synod,  both  as  to  its  original  formation  and  its  subsequent  con- 
duct and  doctrines.  It  was  a  Synod,  in  fact,  in  possession  of  all  the 
privileges  of  a  Synod,  and  such  possession  and  enjoyment  long  recog- 
nized and  acquiesced  in  by  all  the  members  of  the  church.  To  strip 
it  at  once  of  all  these  privileges  is  a  proceeding  in  its  nature  condem- 
natory, and  ought  not  to  be  had  without  due  consideration,  and  giving 
to  the  party  an  opportunity  for  hearing  and  defence. 

The  Assembly  in  the  next  place  proceeded  to  exscind  the  Synods  of 
Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee.  This  measure  appears  to  me  to  be 
subject  to  precisely  the  same  objections,  and  involved  in  the  same  dif- 
ficulties as  the  one  last  considered.  An  additional  reason  is  stated  in 
the  resolution,  at  least  as  an  inducement,  if  not  as  the  foundation  of  the 
proceedings,  which  is,  that  there  were  rumors  of  gross  disorder  preva- 
lent in  those  Synods.  The  charge  is  vague,  without  any  specification 
of  the  disorders,  and  rests,  or  rather  floats  upon  the  most  uncertain  and 
unsatisfactory  of  all  evidence — common  fame.  This  circumstance,  in- 
stead of  strengthening  this  proceeding,  furnishes,  I  think,  an  additional 
objection  to  it.  Under  the  Constitution  rumor  is  the  basis  of  accusation, 
but  it  must  be  followed  by  citation  and  hearing.  To  condemn  large 
bodies  of  men,  by  wholesale,  upon  a  general  charge  of  disorders,  with- 
out specification,  based  upon  the  suspicious  evidence  of  common 
fame,  without  citation  or  defence,  is  an  additional  instance  to  prove 
that  large  assemblies,  as  well  in  church  as  state,  will,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  high  excitement,  resort  to  measures  which  will  not  bear  the 
test  of  calm  and  deliberate  inquiry. 

The  dissolution  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is,  I  think, 
subject  to  the  same  objection,  of  want  of  notice  and  opportunity  for 
defence,  and  does  not  call  for  any  further  remarks. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  consider  these  proceedings  as  inoperative  and 
void,  and  I  think  they  will  he  so  declared  if  any  question  about  proper- 
ty or  rights  should  arise  out  of  them  by  our  judicial  tribunals.  I  think 
a  court  of  law  would  treat  these  irrregular  proceedings  taking  place 
in  the  highest  ecclesiastical  tribunal  as  an  absolute  nullity ;  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  redress  for  the  parties  aggrieved  by  them.  A  par- 
ty being  in  the  minority,  might,  at  a  session  not  very  full,  find  them- 


APPENDIX.  275 

selves  a  majority  of  the  quorum  present,  and,  by  a  summary  excision 
of  a  number  of  the  opposite  party  without  notice  or  trial,  secure  to  them- 
selves a  majority  in  future.  Mere  forms  and  ceremonies  designed  to 
carry  out  such  a  plan,  such  as  pledginc^  their  clerks,  -who  are  mere 
ministerial  officers,  to  reject  the  commissions  of  the  exscinded  mem- 
bers, will  never  stand  in  the  way  of  arriving  at  substantial  justice. 
They  are  morning  clouds,  from  which  the  mist  will  be  di'^sipated  in 
the  sunshine  of  a  court  of  justice.  An  act,  the  effect  of  which  is  to 
operate  fraudulently  upon  the  rights  of  others,  whether  designed  to  do 
BO  or  not,  whether  it  be  constructive  or  actual,  will  be  set  aside,  no 
matter  what  forms  and  solemnities  of  proceeding  are  resorted  to  to 
shield  it.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  four  Synods  and  ihe  Presby- 
tery above  mentioned  are  still  legitimate  members  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
are  entitled  to  all  the  riijhts  and  privileges,  and  subject  to  the  duties 
incident  to  that  relationship. 


[E.] 

OPINION  OF  JUDGE  HOPKINS. 

I.  I  HAVE  heard  it  suggested  that  eminent  counsel  have  doubted 
whether,  in  the  case  of  the  exscinded  judicatories,  there  is  not  a  diffi- 
culty about  the  remedy.  I  take  it  to  be  a  universal  principle,  that  for 
every  wrong  the  law  supplies  a  remedy.  Or  if  this  can  fail  at  all,  it 
must,  I  think,  be  owkig  to  the  imperfect  organization  of  courts  in 
some  of  our  states. 

Perhaps  I  ought  to  explain,  that  I  conceive  the  civil  tribunals  can 
take  no  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  questions,  except  as  incidental  to 
questions  of  property.  In  that  shape  they  may  be  compelled  to  take 
cognizance  of  any  question  not  in  its  own  nature  objectionable,  that 
can  ever  possibly  be  raised. 

II.  A  very  prominent  point  of  discussion,  in  the  late  convention  and 
General  Assembly  at  Philadelphia,  was  the  constitutional  right  of  re- 
pealing the  Plan  of  Union  of  ISOl.  I  mention  this  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  explaining,  that  I  do  not  consider  the  discussion  of  it  ne- 
cessary, inasmuch  as  I  think  it  is  superseded  by  the  points  which  I 
shall  proceed  to  mention,  and  which,  I  think,  were  not  adverted  to  at 
Philadelphia.  I  will  merely  remark,  however,  that  I  conceive  that 
the  clause  in  chap.  xii.  sec.  6,  p.  365,  of  the  Form  of  Government,  has 
been  misunderstood  and  misapplied. 


276  APPENDIX. 

I II.  Some  of  the  most  beautiful  and  salutary  of  all  regulations  for 
preserving  civil  order  are  those  which  regard  the  powers  of  officers 
and  functionaries  who  are  such  de  facto,  and  not  de  Jure.     Without 
these   there  could  be  no  safety  in  life,  nor  reliance  upon   any  legal 
guarantee.     The  legal  principle  is,  in  substance,  that  when  a  person 
is  in  possession  of  an  offine,  exercising  its  powers,  and  claiming  to  do 
80   of  right,  the  acta   of   such    officer   are  to   be   deemed    rightful, 
as  regards    third  persons    at  least,  though   he   was    not   truly  en- 
titled to  the  office  he  held.     This  principle  extends  through  every  de- 
partment of  society,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest.  Thus  in  England,  in 
the  wars  between  the  houses  of  York  and  Lancaster,  the  acts  of  either 
king,  while  on  the  throne,  were  held  legally  binding,  so  far  as  their 
Bubjects  were  concerned.     Thus  in  the  smallest  corporation,  if  a  ma- 
jority of  the  members  are  illegally  returned,  the  acts  of  those  mem- 
bers, after  they  are   ousted  by  their  rivals,  bind  the  body  corporate. 
Thus  it  is,  that  when  the  deed  for  my  house  is  recorded  by  the  coun- 
ty clerk,  I   stand  in  no  fear  of  my  title,  although  the  acting  clerk  was 
not  truly  entitled  to  the  office.     And  thus,  too,  the  acting  sheriff,  who 
executes  a  criminal  to-day,  is  not  thereby  guilty  of  murder,  although 
it  should  turn  out  that  he  was   unduly  elected,  and  his   rival  should 
oust  him  to-morrow.     The  same  applies  to  legislative  acts,  passed  by 
majorities,  comprising   sitting  members,  who   may  lose   their  seats, 
when  such  acts  could  not  have  been  passed,  if  the  right  members  had 
been  first  returned. 

I  conceive  that  this  principle  contains  a  conclusive  answer  to  every 
argument  drawn  against  the  exscinded  Synods  and  Presbyteries,  on  the 
ground  that  any  of  them  might  possibly  be  constituted  in  pursuance 
of  votes,  in  which  some  committee  men,  or  unconstitutional  delegates 
may  have  concurred.  Moreover,  those  arguments  prove  too  much  ; 
for  if  the  votes  of  unconstitutional  delegates  vitiate  the  proceedings 
of  synods  and  presbyteries,  they  would,  on  the  same  ground,  vitiate 
those  of  the  General  Assembly  itself.  I  believe  that  it  has  even  been 
alleged,  that  such  delegates  have  had  seats  in  the  Assembly,  and  in 
this  case,  and  upon  this  ground,  the  Assembly  itself  would  thencefor- 
ward have  become  illegal,  possessing  no  higher  rightful  existence,  than 
it  has  allowed  to  the  exscinded  judicatories. 

IV.  The  idea  that  the  act  of  excision  was  merely  arbitrary,  and 
adopted  without  formal  accusation,  citation,  trial,  proof,  or  regular  de- 
fence, or  means  of  defence,  is  already  fully  before  the  public.  But  I  wish 
to  add  one  or  two  considerations  :  First — the  essentials  of  fair  trial  on 
reasonable  notice,  and  with  means  of  defence,  are  matters  of  inherent 
right  in  every  case  of  this  nature,  and  I  apprehend  the  civil  tribunals 


APPENDIX.  277 

would  never  allow  that  right  to  be  violated,  even  if  it  were  not  ex- 
pressly provided  for.  But,  secondly,  the  Code  of  Discipline,  chap  ii., 
sec.  1,  par.  5  and  6,  p.  409,  is  perfectly  express  on  that  subject.  It 
both  establishes  the  right  of  trial,  and  gives  the  form  of  process,  and 
according  to  those  provisions  the  General  Assembly  had  power  to 
correct  all  that  was  disorderly  or  irregular  in  those  judicatories.  And, 
thirdly,  these  measures  having  been  neglected,  the  case  will,  I  think, 
stand  before  the  civil  courts  as  a  simple  excision  without  cause  ;  and 
in  such  case  the  civil  tribunals  will  not  at  all  entertain  the  question, 
whether,  in  fact,  there  was  cause  or  not.  They  will  consider  it  suffi- 
cient, that  no  due  course  of  ecclesiastical  judicial  investigation  was 
adopted,  such  as  the  form  of  government  prescribes. 

V.  Respecting  the  idea  that  the  formation  of  the  four  exscinded  Syn- 
ods was  consequent  upon  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  that  they  must  fall  with 
the  repeal  of  that  Plan,  it  seems  to  me  that  many  links  in  the  chain 
of  fact  and  argument  are  wanting  to  make  that  conclusion  a  seguitur. 
How  do  these  things  appear  to  be  so  ?  for  I  have  seen  no  particular 
fact  stated.     Was  the  Presbyterian  church  utterly  and  for  ever  pre- 
cluded from  forming  particular  Churches,  Presbyteries  and  Synods 
within  the  undefined  Hmits  of  what  were  called  new  settlements  in 
1801  ?     Was  that  prohibition  perpetual,  or  limited  in  point  of  time  ? 
Was  it  not  possible  that  one  or  more  churches  should  be  there  formed 
without  this  leaven  of  unconstitutionality,  or  that,  having  been  orio-in- 
ally  infected  with  that  leaven,  they  should  have  purged  it  out  ?    If 
there  are  judicatories  still  thus  infected,  does  it  appear  whether  they 
constitute  the  majority  or   the  minority  ?     And  if  a  minority,  is  it 
then  a  principle  that  every  judicatory  containing  a  minority  of  infect- 
ed members  is  for  thatn-eason  to  be  cut  off  ?     Where  would  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  itself  be  upon  that  principle  ?     If  a  majority,  why  have 
they  not  long  since  proceeded  as  the  constitution  points  out  ?  If  within 
the  exscinded  judicatories  there  should  be  found  to  exist  a  single  par- 
ticular church  which  had  a  legitimate  connection  with  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  was  unimpeachable  on  any  ground  of  error  in  doctrine* 
practice,  or  organization,  it  may  emphatically  be   asked,  how  could 
such  church  be  cut  off  xdthout  trial— ho\y  could  it  be  cut  off  on  trial? 
Are  we  not  then  driven  back  to  the  question  of  fact,  whether  they 
(the  exscinded  judicatories)  were  illegally  constituted,  and  to  the  con- 
sequences of  that  fact,  and  also  to  the  question  of  their  present  state, 
and  have  those  questions  been  judicially  investigated  ? 

VI.  But  there  is  matter  apparent  upon  the  very  face  of  the  printed 
form  of  government,  which  alone  must  be  sufficient  to  set  this  ques- 
tion at  rest,  without  support  from  any  other  point.     This  form  of 

33 


278  APPENDIX. 

government  was  adopted  and  ratified  by  the  General  Assembly  in 
1821.  i.  e,  exactly  twenty  years  after  the  Plan  of  Union.  By  the  list 
of  standing  committees  at  the  end  of  the  Form  of  Government,  page 
458,  it  appears  that  the  Synods  of  Genesee  and  Geneva  were  then  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  were  represented  in  the 
Assembly  of  that  year.  From  the  minutes  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  that  year,  it  appears  that  sundry  presbyteries,  which  are  now  a 
part  of  the  Synod  of  Utica,  were  also  there  represented.  In  sub- 
stance and  effect,  therefore,  the  three  exscinded  synods  of  this  State 
were  then  constituent  parts  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  parties  to 
the  formation  of  its  present  constitution.  It  follows,  I  think,  as  a  ne- 
cessary consequence,  that,  be  the  irregularities  in  constitution,  discip- 
line, doctrine,  or  measures  ever  so  flagrant,  the  judicatories  cannot  in 
any  manner  be  impeached  for  any  of  those  faults,  except  on  the  ground 
of  after-continuance.  At  the  moment  of  forming  that  constitution , 
they  were  judicatories,  acknowledged  by  the  concurrence  of  all  the 
others  to  be  such  in  full  right — they  constituted  integral  and  legiti- 
mate parts  of  the  General  Presbyterian  Church,  and,  for  causes  then 
existing,  they  were  not,  nor  are  more  liable  to  excision,  than  the  origi- 
nal presbyteries  of  Philadelphia  or  New  York. 

But,  furthermore,  how  does  it  appear  that  the  four  exscinded  synods 
embrace  all  the  territory  which  was  meant  by  new  settlements  in 
ISOl,  and  in  which  the  Assembly  have  now  presbyteries  ?  What 
shall  we  say  of  the  remaining  presbyteries  of  Ohio,  of  some  in  "West 
Pennsylvania,  and  of  several  in  the  Synod  of  Albany  ?  Why  are  not 
these  also  cut  oflF?  And  can  this  question  be  answered  without  leaving 
some  imputation  of  partiality  ? 

SAMUEL  M.  HOPKINS. 

Geneva,  20th  July,  1887. 


? 


y 


J 


